[All text below from the posts, not from me]
http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2008/03
/accessibility_problems_with_mi.html
Part of my job is investigating new technologies that we
might want or
need to support on the Mass.Gov portal. A colleague brought
microformats to my attention a year or so ago. Although I
found it
alluring—re-using standard markup to provide richer
content—there were
troubling accessibility issues.
[...] The abbr design pattern is also used by some to
provide
translations. Unless someone wants to declare that there is
a One True
Language, this is not only problematic for people using AT,
it not
semantically defensible.
[...] There has been resistance from the microformats
community to
addressing these conflicts. This is dismaying since one
their basic
tenets is to give precedence to use "in the wild"
and this is how AT
products actually behave. There was a big hullaballoo about
this in
May 2007, but there has been no change since then. This
leads me to
believe that the microformats folks just do not care about
accessibility to the extent that I need to.
If Massachusetts pursues enriching our content, RDFa seems a
more
likely candidate. We prefer to adopt things that have been
created and
promulgated by standards bodies: they are more stable, the
deliberative process surfaces and resolves problems
beforehand, and
are the only reliable basis for interoperability.
http://realtech.burningbird.net/semweb/acc
essibility-and-microformats/
Standards by general consensus rarely works out. For
instance, the
HTML5 working group has 504 members. How the heck can you
get anything
accomplished when you have 504 members?
--
David Janes
Founder, BlogMatrix
http://www.blogmatrix.com
http://www.onaswarm.com
http://www.onamine.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|