W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Proposal to address issue of scope of guideline 11

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:48:50 +1000 (AEST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.990611133415.14247A-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
As an alternative to Ian's proposal:

11.2: Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies once user agents
support equivalent functionality provided by newer standards (E.G. style
Priority 2.

The sense of checkpoint 3.3 is that if layout and presentation are to be
controlled at all by the author of the document, this must be achieved
through style sheets to the extent that they are supported by user agents.
This could be clarified either in a note to the checkpoint, or the
Techniques document.

This is already implicit in the note accompanying checkpoint 5.3 where it
is recognised that style sheet positioning is not yet adequately supported
and that tables may, albeit in carefully restricted circumstances,
continue to be employed for purposes of layout until positioning is better

However, if checkpoint 11.2 is to be changed, perhaps it will be necessary
to add a further requirement that presentational elements and attributes
which can not be turned off by user agents, be avoided. Absolute units of
length are already discouraged elsewhere in the guidelines.

Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that a new version of the guidelines is
needed so soon after Recommendation, as the issues which have been raised
do not appear to be critical (Ian argued in the teleconference that style
sheets could effectively be used to provide borders around images except
where two images are aligned; by simply avoiding this situation in the
design of the document, the problem can be avoided entirely, and although
in my opinion, checkpoint 11.2 warrants clarification I don't think this
issue is sufficiently serious as to warrant a new version of the

If further problems arise, then a revised version may be warranted, but
the issues which have appeared so far are not sufficiently significant to
necessitate such a course of action.
Received on Thursday, 10 June 1999 23:48:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:29 UTC