E-mail List Archives

Re: Available title indication via css

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Nov 11, 2017 9:54AM


There are two ways forward to resolve this problem in the longer term.
Either get the browser vendors to support the title ttribute properly,
or drop it from the spec.
And, yes, if I use an HTML attribute properly, according to the
definition of its use, it could be argued that it is not my problem if
users cant perceive it )or at least it is not only my problem).

I can blame the browser vendors, or I can tell my keyboard only users
to switch to Microsoft Edge, or file an issue with the browser they
prefer.

I understand the dilemma, I feel it every day. Should I recommend not
using a valid attribute, because I don't want to discriminate against
my clients, but I also feel the pull of an achieveable, affordable
universal access, which is that the authors cannot, and should not, go
out of their way and not use semantically correct HTML because someone
else in the chain is not doing their duty, whether it is the browser
or the user agent.

I feel we ckeep dodging the real problem when we keep telling people
they can't use the title attribute. The fundamental problem is, why
can't they? Is it impossible for the browser vendors to support it? If
so, it shouldn't be in the specification. Or is it that the vendors
don't care, or don't put enough priority on this problem. Then we have
to ask why, and how that can be changed.

I understand the pull, and the delicate balance we face, ultimately we
need to make sure all our users can access our content. But in order
to have a long-term success we also have to work on the standards or
the user agents have to do their job.

Why does the standard allow the title attribute on non focusable
elements? Isn't that a fundamental discrimination against people with
disabilities in herent in the very specification behind web pages?
Yes, it shouldn't be used for essential information about an element,
but if it is used by any information, and that information is not
accessible to certain group of users, why is it valid use?
I don't pretend to have the answers, I admit that, but I think the
question needs to be askked by now and together we may find those
answers, not for today but for the future.



On 11/11/17, Wolfgang Berndorfer < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> For WCAG standards I don't discriminate, when I use title attribute, as far
> as I expand in first instance: Everybody can find the meaning in first
> instance on the page. My point is that is not enough for usability.
>
> And the metaproblem stays: Is it a discrimination to help some people with
> functionality, which is not available general. My opinion: It is no
> discrimination. Nobody would forbid graphic organigramms for instance,
> because their complex informations about relations can textually only be
> explained too verbously.
> >
> -----Urspr√ɬľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] Im Auftrag
> von Patrick H. Lauke
> Gesendet: Samstag, 11. November 2017 16:47
> An: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Betreff: Re: [WebAIM] Available title indication via css
>
> On 11/11/2017 14:40, Wolfgang Berndorfer wrote:
> [...]
>> Here we come to the fundamental discussion: Is allowed, what is helpful
> for
>> some, but inaccessible for others?
>
> If you provide content only perceivable by one user group, you're
> discriminating/disadvantaging other user groups.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.