[uf-discuss] proposed title-design-pattern is not backwards
compatible, too big of a change
Tantek Ç elik
tantek at cs.stanford.edu
Sun Apr 29 08:27:46 PDT 2007
On 4/29/07 8:10 AM, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux at splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Better to not even require an informed assumption.
Patrick, it would greatly benefit the precision and confidence in any
proposal if you could help document some of the specific screen readers
mentioned in the WaSP article on the microformats wiki:
Following that, the current results that have been confirmed with using such
technologies with actual microformatted content in the wild that uses abbr,
perhaps on a page like:
>> 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.
Agreed and this would help any such proposal. However I do think we first
need such documentation of the abbr results so that we can compare and see
just what actual incremental advantage would result from adopting any
>> 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.
Please share your expertise with specifics:
More information about the microformats-discuss