On 2009/04/08 07:16 (GMT+0100) Matthew Pennell composed:
> A user's choice of technology is not an accessibility issue. If people want
> to view content on the web, they have to make sure they are using suitable
> hardware and software - using a 10-year-old browser doesn't qualify, IMO.
The antit
On Apr 8, 2009, at 8:12 AM, David Dorward wrote:
A line needs to be drawn somewhere. The problem is that nobody can
really seem to agree on where a reasonable place to draw it is.
Perhaps this is the very reason why accessibility still going nowhere
and that we are still the .1 % o
> Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
> to be accessible the site doesn't necessarily have to look great, but
at least the content should show up in all browsers, even the old ones,
right?
Well, just talking WCAG 2, the requirement would be to use
accessibility-supported technologies (see
http:/
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
I mean: to be accessible the site doesn't necessarily have to look
great, but at least the content should show up in all browsers, even the old
ones, right?
That would mark any site that used shared webhosting (i.e. most
websites) as inaccessible since th
>A user's choice of technology is not an accessibility issue. If people want
to view content on the web, they have to make sure they are using suitable
hardware and >software - using a 10-year-old browser doesn't qualify, IMO.
Should I be able to view a site on my Commodore 64?
Do they have tcp
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
wrote:
>
>
>
> I went through WCAG 1 and WCAG 2, and I expected an appropriate
guideline to
> show up under Priority 1 (or Level A), but nothing. Or am I
missing
> something in the obscure wording of the document
I tend to follow a hierarchy of needs.
At the most basic level, the text needs to be correctly rendered.
This implies that a web site may be dependant on specific versions of
operating systems or browsers. This is the reality of text layout/font
rendering systems.
In theory supporting old
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] <
aboeh...@addictivemedia.com.au> wrote:
>
> I went through WCAG 1 and WCAG 2, and I expected an appropriate guideline
> to
> show up under Priority 1 (or Level A), but nothing. Or am I missing
> something in the obscure wording of
Hey guys,
I have just come across a website that looks absolutely fine in IE7, IE6,
Firefox and the other modern browsers, however in IE5 none of the content
shows up.
The HTML/CSS is all valid, but what really made me stop and think is that
the site actually complies with the WCAG 1.0 guidelin