W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Basing conformance for accessibility questions on subjective determinations

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:21:46 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0804170221q426fa888w8f01344fe9edf7f2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>  All of these are subjective conformance criteria that are key
>  accessibility questions.
>  All of these also apply to HTML4 documents.
>  I see no way to make these anything but subjective. How do you suggest we
>  address these problems?

I suggest leaving them to WCAG, to avoid repetition and potential
conflict (should WCAG in some incompatible way).

>  * Using <h1> to identify a header rather that big text.
"Sections should be introduced with the HTML heading elements (H1-H6).
Other markup may complement these elements to improve presentation
(e.g., the HR element to create a horizontal dividing line), but
visual presentation is not sufficient to identify document sections."

>  * Using <cite> for works, not quotations.
There are generic WCAG criteria (use markup properly) but nothing
specific to address this. "Use markup properly" implies that HTML5
need to define "proper" I guess, so we keep this? But every element
has a defined purpose, does that necessitate a need to turn each into
conformance criteria? (It might??) Maybe we are just identifying
common mistakes (i.e. where authors need guidance)... I'd like to see
them bundled into WCAG though. Probably just as extra techniques for
the relevant guidelines.

>  * Using <em> for emphasis, not italics.

>  * Using <ins> to indicate inserted text, not underlines.
as with cite, this is the definition of ins.

>  * Using tables for tabular data, not layout.

>  * Providing correct header/cell associations with header="" and scope="".
HTML5 gives us the rules and algorithms - how this works. WCAG
provides conformance definitions:

>  * Including appropriate alternative text in alt="".

>  * Associating the right form control with <label for="">.

>  All of these are subjective conformance criteria that are key
>  accessibility questions.

And all of these were documented back in WCAG 1.0

I don't understand why we don't just leave it in WCAG ~:)
I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know it.

Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 09:22:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:32 UTC