W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-site@w3.org > July 2004

RE: FEEDBACK: review Friday 2 July for visual design

From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:57:06 -0500
To: <public-wai-eo-site@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b301c4605d$fd0477d0$6e45c418@SLHenry>

> >While we prefer comps in valid, accessible XHTML and CSS, we 
> understand 
> >that it is often not an effective use of time and effort to 
> make early 
> >comps fully meet standards and work well on multiple configurations.
> Therefore, at this stage we will accept comps as graphics files, 
> preferably PNG,
> 
> In my experience, often when someone provides a design in graphic 
> format, it may or may not be able to translate into an accessible 
> format.  I have a concern about getting a design in graphic format. 
> If it is in xhtml, at least we have an idea if it can be easily made 
> accessible or not. If it is in a graphic, it will take a lot more 
> thought.  I would vote that it has to be in code and not in graphic 
> format.  They can put in graphic AND code but not just graphic. That 
> could be a disaster waiting to happen, in my opinion. You could end 
> up approving a design that is cannot be converted to accessible code. 
> I am not familiar with PNG so I can't address that type of graphic 
> but the standard flat graphics have posed significant problems in the 
> past.  Just raising the flag to avoid a potential problem.

(First, for clarifiction: the pages I provided are in XHTML. We would
need CSS to determine if the design is feasible.)

Some of the visual design volunteers are likely not CSS experts. We have
another volunteer to help with the CSS. We will be careful not to
approve any design until it has been proven do-able.

> 2. Under TIMELINE
> We are preceding with visual design now in order to
> 
>       should be "proceeding"

Good catch! Thanks!

~ Shawn
Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 13:57:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:19 GMT