[uf-discuss] proposed title-design-pattern is not
backwards compatible, too big of a change
Patrick H. Lauke
redux at splintered.co.uk
Sun Apr 29 08:10:33 PDT 2007
Brian Suda wrote:
> We are naively ASSUMING that people with assistive technologies NEED
> our help.
I would suggest that common sense, based on the sample of screen reader
output provided in the WaSP article, does indeed lead us to assume, but
it's an informed assumption.
> I would prefer, before WE think we can hand the right
> soltion down from on high, that someone who uses a screen-reader as
> their main browser give their feedback.
Then we should build some test cases with the various proposed changes
to the abbr pattern (general title-design-pattern on a variety of
elements, a span-design-pattern, etc), and have them tested. WaSP ATF
can certainly help in this endeavour.
> We skirt the issue by moving data to the title attribute of
> alternative elements, how do we know screen-readers now
Because James, Bruce and I (as well as probably a few others that hame
chimed in on the discussion) have reasonable experience of current
screen reader behaviour in the here and now.
> or later
I thought microformats was supposed to be a technology that works
*today*, not some hypothetical future? As such, yes, it may or may not
have to adapt with changes in the technological landscape.
> read out those as well? we are coding around a problem by potentiall
> creating other ones and ignoring the semantics of the HTML spec in the
I'd temper that with: the microformats' group *interpretation* of the
HTML spec. The semantic meaning has already been slightly stretched to
fit the abbr-pattern, in my (and some other members' and non-members')
Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
More information about the microformats-discuss