W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1998

Re: Comments on Rating and Classification

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:57:26 +0100
Message-Id: <199801290957.KAA08606@www47.inria.fr>
To: "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> this definition.  For example,  "Section 2 recommendation 5: Provide
> descriptive titles for all images used as links." As long as alt-text is
> provided for these images, users will be able to use these images as links.
>  Descriptive titles will increase the usability. Therefore this would 
> appear to be a [RECOMMENDED] item.

DD:: REQUIRED in this context re-enforces the idea that IMG in A with
no desc are twice as bad as simple IMG with no desc.

If we get this message out somewhere else, that's OK with me.

We also need to have the discussion on usage of ALT/TITLE/etc before
closing on this one.

> Issue 1
> Current: Section 1 Recommendation 1:  Use style sheets to position text and
> objects, etc...
> Discussion: I think it is not reasonnable to mark as "required" not using
> table to layout things, and to put it in the same bullet list as horrible
> things like converting text to image or using 1pixel gif. CSS2 positioning
> will provide better support for absolute position of boxes on page and
> there is already some floating properties in CSS1, but we're still far from
> the implicit-rescaling and the simple layout model provided by table rows
> and columns. Plus there are thousands of such tables out already and I
> don't see them moving to any kind of positioning anytime soon (W3C being on
> my top list).
> I would argue for talking about TABLE in the table section only, while
> exposing the details of making TABLE (even used for layout) accessible.
> More comments there.
> Action: Changed from required to recommended
> References:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html

DD:: my original comment was just to take out the table line in this
section, not to change the whole Style section rating.

But we discussed that a little on the list and my last batch of
comments didn't ask for any change.

So we can keep it (the table line) in the Style REQUIRED set as far as
I'm concerned, as long as we change the TABLE section itself (which
you are doing).
> Issue 4
> Current: Section 5 Recommendations 1,2,3. HTML structural elements are only
> used to convey meaning, not presentation.   HTML presentational elements
> are only used to convey presentation, not meaning.   Headings are nested
> properly and are not used for layout.
> Discussion:
> COMMENT 1: Change all 3 From Recommended to Required, they need to be at 
> the same level as using SS at the beginning.
> COMMENT 2: If SS are moved from required to recommended,
> does this comment still apply?

DD:: See my above note: SS stays REQUIRED.

> Issue 10
> Current: Section 9 Recommendation 1: Ensure that your pages are readable
> and usable without frames.
> Discussion:
> COMMENT 1: From Required to Recommended, or an Interim. A browser issue
> really.
> COMMENT 2: <NOFRAME> does not seem to be an interim

DD:: HTML4 specs:
 "In addition, the FRAMESET section can contain a NOFRAMES
 element to provide alternate content for user agents that do not
 support frames or are configured not to display frames."

So this is an interim thing.

> solution.  Currently, if  NOFRAME is not provided, the page is inaccessible
> (thus required).

DD:: You said it yourself: "Currently...."
> Issue 11
> Current: Testing tips:  To predict how one of today's screen readers might
> read your table,  hold a piece of paper up to your monitor. As you slide
> the paper down   the monitor, read the words above the line the paper
> creates as a  sentence. Ask another person to listen as you read the page
> out loud without pausing for column gaps. Can he or she make sense out of
> what you have read?
> Discussion:
> COMMENT 1: Interim testing tips, it should say so.
> COMMENT 2: It says, "To predict how one of *today's* screen
> readers..."  therefore would seem to already imply interim.  (also testing 
> tips are not otherwise labeled).

DD:: I guess my point is that the tips should be rated as well wrt timing.
> Issue 12
> Current: Include a phone number, e-mail address, postal address or fax
> number  for submitting information.
> Discussion:
> COMMENT 1: Interim.
> COMMENT 2: Isn't it always a good idea to include this
> information if someone is having problems accessing the information.

DD:: But isn't it the case that people are having problem in the
interim only ? because their tools are not good enough to use the form
as is.

To me, this is about changing the content of the information, which is
something I'm opposed to: the source should be the same for everybody,
it just needs to be accessible to all media.
Received on Thursday, 29 January 1998 04:57:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:26 UTC