> Thierry Koblentz wrote: > > > Isn't the responsibility of screen reader manufacturers to treat DLs > for > > what they are? > > > > Following this logic, we should be using basic table markup for > layout > > to give people using old visual browsers a better experience. > > > > If we cheat with the markup to please user agents what's the > incentive > > for SR manufacturers to take care of the problem? > > If I hear you right, you're saying we should write code that may > disadvantage our users in the hope that it will influence how screen > reader manufacturers build their software?
No, what I'm saying is that we should write semantic markup and hope that SR manufacturers fix their product asap. JAWS, to name one product, is a very expensive software. Freedomscientific should take care of its customers, it is not to the authors to lower the quality of their documents to give SR users a better experience. Because like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to give users of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better experience too? Why just SR users? We have seen the same issue with acronym and abbr. Most authors are using "acronym" *instead* of "abbr" for the only reason that IE is ABBR-challenged, *not* because "acronym" is the proper element to use. > I would have thought take care of your users first and foremost and > then > lobby the vendors is a better approach. May be a better approach would be to use something like this: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/best_practice/IamAScreenReaderUser.asp It takes care of the issue without cheating with the markup. -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
