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

Re: Basing conformance for accessibility questions on subjective determinations

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:47:52 -0500
To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1208465272.4651.4.camel@pav.lan>

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:21 +1000, Ben Boyle wrote:
> 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).


That's one of the more interesting suggestions I've seen in
this discussion. It seems like a good way to reduce
our workload by leveraging work done elsewhere.


> >  * 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."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#document-headers
> 
> >  * 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.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#text-emphasis
> 
> >  * Using <ins> to indicate inserted text, not underlines.
> as with cite, this is the definition of ins.
> 
> >  * Using tables for tabular data, not layout.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-avoid-table-for-layout
> 
> 
> >  * Providing correct header/cell associations with header="" and scope="".
> HTML5 gives us the rules and algorithms - how this works. WCAG
> provides conformance definitions:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#identifying-table-rows-columns
> 
> >  * Including appropriate alternative text in alt="".
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#image-text-equivalent
> 
> >  * Associating the right form control with <label for="">.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#forms-labels
> 
> >  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.
> 
> cheers
> Ben
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 20:47:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT