W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3

From: Neff, Robert <Robert.Neff@usmint.treas.gov>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:18:57 -0400
Message-ID: <B1E68D292F3CD111A57C0000F67CB3CAC2F1CD@WDCSRV03.usmint.treas.gov>
To: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>, ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ <ADAM.GUASCH@EEOC.GOV>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Tables add to the file size and can be aproblem with accessibility if nto
used properly.  In a rapid application environment, universal accessibility
items can be missed when there are updates and tables compound the review
process - if there is one.  Basically, the less there, the easier it is to
maintain. the most accessible accolade I give this site is tables were not
used for layout, only data.  So here is an example of a functional web site.
The target audience was unions and coporation who needed access to
information (and the public).  We never received a bad comment and only
received thanks for making a web site that downloads fast, and is functional
and usable, where information is easy to find.

In regrards the statment on the use of deprecated HTML elements, will let
Jamie speak to this as I am no longer there.  If they were a part of the
original design, then I missed this in the quality assurance review.  Then
again, we were flying and also the Guildelines were draft back then and the
revisions were a moving target <smile>.  But deprecated has alway been a
part of HTML 4.

rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 7:26 PM
To: ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ
Cc: robneff@home.com; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; w3c-wai-eo@w3.org;
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3


At 07:06 AM 7/16/1999 , ADAM GUASCH-MELENDEZ wrote:
>In the case of the example you provided, your page appears to be fully 
>accessible, but it uses deprecated HTML elements to control the appearance 
>of the page. Here, CSS would be required. Or, simply strip out the 
>deprecated elements, and you're fine without CSS.

Question:  Is the page with CSS instead of the HTML more accessible,
less accessible, or equally accessible?  Can you explain exactly
how the accessibility has been noticeably improved in this case?

Note that there may be a choice between "having this look the
same in Netscape 3.0 and Netscape 4.0" and "making a very minor
increase in accessibility."  For some agencies or companies, the
tiny benefit is not worth the cost of losing support for Netscape
3.0.

--
Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Saturday, 17 July 1999 12:19:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:25 GMT