https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4901
--- Comment #37 from Michael Zajac <[email protected]> 2011-05-19 20:04:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #36) > The concept of a regular browser is essential, [...] Then please define “regular browser,” at least broadly. Does this include MSIE 9? Safari 4? MSIE 6? Netscape 4? Mobile Safari? BlackBerry mobile browser? What about the yet-unreleased MSIE 10, Firefox 5, Safari 6, etc? Does it include supporting readers who navigate web pages using the keyboard? Using a touch device? Using a text-only browser? A braille display? (And why would you not include Google's indexer? I'd bet that more people access more Wikipedia articles through it than any other way.) I think it's a mistake to categorize “regular” use of a website as that involving a narrowly stereotyped range of technology, especially if we try to define assistive technologies as irregular. This risks specifically ghettoizing a disadvantaged group of people. Design and technical features for accessibility have the potential to improve a whole range of uses of a website. > because the ones who create and > maintain site content, and MediaWiki developers and sysadmins, are > overwhelmingly people who use regular browsers almost exclusively [Citation needed] > If something doesn't affect regular browsers, it's far > more likely to be used improperly, [...] Yeah, we can't test everything in every browser, not even in every “regular” one. That's why we fall back on standards. > Even aside from that, many standards have a tendency to be impractical or > theoretical. Lots of stuff in HTML 4.01 didn't match what any browsers did or > intended to do, for instance. The XHTML line of standards after 1.0 was > basically never implemented at all. Trusting that what standards say makes > sense is maybe a reasonable first guess, but you definitely shouldn't assume > it > very strongly. Those are't the standards we are using. We are using current, practical, accepted standards. But when the topic is accessibility, i.e. the availability of free and open information to a minority who may have disadvantaged access to it, we should be leading and liberal in adopting solutions that may reduce friction without causing appreciable harm. We should definitely use lang attributes here, which are standardized, recommended, and supported. I see no strong argument against using hreflang attributes, but I don't think they're absolutely necessary. I support adding a feature that might improve the experience with assistive technology, but I'm okay with moving that to a separate bug listing if it will give us consensus here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
