W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: [CSS-TECHS]

From: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:49:40 -0600
Message-ID: <2FECE9363D811B418C3F282834F172A56DBD2E@PIKESPEAK.corp.ecl>
To: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I have a suggestion for 'convincing web developers' to use CSS in general
and these techniques in particular.

Accessibility alwas seems to be equated with disability - but of the three
disabilities web developers can code "for" or "around" there are currently
very popular and relatively inexpensive technological solutions that
correspond to disabilities we can code around: vision, mobility, and
hearing.

VISION: We can equate vision with the video card and images. Internet
capable cell phones don't have a very robust video card and can't really do
images that well. A case in point for using text-based solutions and then
augmenting that information with images.

MOBILITY: Coding for input-device independence opens the door again for
Internet use with cell phones and accounts for PDAs, which have a stylus.
MouseEvents in general are useless with the devices.

HEARING: Again, PDAs and Cell Phones. Augment with sound as with images, and
devices will either render the sound content or not.

I've found that by introducing accessibility as an issue of user agent and
not user, developers are much more enthusiastic when it comes to
implementing the WCAG.

Joel


Joel Sanda 
Product Manager
-------------------------------------------------------www.eCollege.com
eCollege
joels@ecollege.com
> p. 303.873.7400 x3021
> f.  303.632.1721 


-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:50 AM
To: Jo Miller; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: [CSS-TECHS]


Jo,

Thanks for your comments and I agree with your points.  Well made.  I'm 
glad you will be willing to work on this document.  Your work with NCI on 
508 guidance is very good.

Is there specific text you would like to suggest for the "Why?" section?
Would you like to create new styles for the examples?
Would you like to begin working on the reasoning for each item?

I agree that a positive approach is a good one, as long as it is also 
realistic (i.e. tempered with reality, e.g. absolute positioning can be 
really cool but it's not consistently supported).  I have found this a 
helpful way to start with people as well when I give
presentations/workshops.

I look forward to any help, thoughts, ideas, or suggestions you have to
offer.

Thanks much.
--wendy


At 07:32 AM 7/18/01 , Jo Miller wrote:
>Wendy,
>
>Thanks for all your great work on the new CSS Techniques 2.0 draft. I have 
>a couple of initial ruminations, very general.
>
>As we were discussing the other day, convincing web developers to use CSS 
>(properly) and abandon the misuse of HTML for presentation is a real 
>challenge, for a variety of reasons. The CSS Techniques document will play 
>a key role in encouraging and easing adoption if we present the 
>information in a way that conistently resonates with these web authors. 
>Your draft makes an excellent start, I think, by anticipating and 
>answering their main question right at the beginning: "why? what's in it 
>for me?" From my point of view, section 1 (author benefits and user 
>benefits, new in 2.0) may be the most critical part of the document. Much 
>depends on setting the right tone here and carrying it through the rest of 
>the sections, reinforcing the message that CSS is an author's best friend 
>(and not a confusing mass of pitfalls and headaches, as they may 
>previously have thought).
>
>I'd like to continue thinking about these 
>audience/presentation/positioning issues as we move forward. Perhaps it's 
>too optimistic to think that by "putting honey on the page" we can turn a 
>critical mass of web designers into accessibility advocates, but hey, 
>might as well try.
>
>Explaining, if only briefly, the reasoning behind the rules will do much 
>to foster a true understanding (and adoption) of the techniques. Whenever 
>we say "do x, don't do y," we ought to tell them why, with positive 
>emphasis on the benefits. Again, this will help overcome the widepread 
>misapprehension among designers that CSS is a drag.
>
>I also think the Techniques should emphasize, perhaps repeatedly, the need 
>for testing style sheets on multiple browsers and platforms. By the way, 
>using <PRE> for examples in combination with a 75% box width for .example 
>and .css-example (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/style/default.css) 
>creates text that overruns the right-hand borders of the boxes at narrow 
>screen resolutions (and on IE5 for Mac at 800x600). This might become a 
>problem if, in some readers' minds, it undermines the case for CSS.
>
>Wendy, I'd be happy to work with you on this if you think I've got 
>anything of value to contribute. Thanks again.
>
>Jo
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>A new CSS Techniques draft is available at:
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20010716/
>>
>>The open issues and list of to do's is at:
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/css-tech-issues.html
>>
>>The change log, which is not terribly detailed, is at:
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/css-techs-change-history.html
>>
>>Note that instead of creating "checkpoint solutions" or 
>>"technology-specific checkpoints" or "evaluation criteria" I created an 
>>assessment section that will provide tests to perform (it's not yet 
>>complete).  I wrestled with writing evaluation criteria.  There was so 
>>much to update in this document, that I just began at the 
>>beginning.  There is still much to update, but it's a start.
>>
>>This took much longer than I had expected because I ran into several 
>>issues with presenting the info - trying to find the most effective 
>>way.  I decided to take a more pedigogical approach.  I'm not sure if it 
>>works and I know that it doesn't yet meet all of the needs we are trying 
>>to address.  I also haven't completed the overhaul, but I wanted to get 
>>something out there for people to begin thinking about.
>>
>>Primarily, I wanted to begin thinking about the differences between CSS 
>>for HTML and CSS for XML.  I want to make sure that the WCAG 2.0 
>>checkpoints can handle the differences.
>>
>>This process has raised a few questions:
>>
>>1. Who wants to work with me on this? Should we start a sub-group and 
>>report results back to the list?  Kind of like what Katie and Loretta are 
>>doing with PDF?  However, I would like to publicly archive discussions, 
>>and tehrefore keep them on wai-gl, but with a subject heading of 
>>"[CSS-TECHS] subject X".
>>
>>2. Linking between techniques documents will be interesting.
>>
>>3. WCAG 2.0 currently says, "4.4 Design content so that when presentation 
>>effects are turned off or not supported the content is still usable. 
>>"  Which is still basically saying, "make sure the page is usable when 
>>CSS is turned off."  As we've discussed, this won't work for XML 
>>applications.  Is this an HTML-specific checkpoint?
>>
>>
>>I would like to give credit to a few key places that I found info and 
>>inspiration:
>>1. the wai-ig list, particularly comments from Charles Munat and David 
>>Woolley
>>2. the css1 and css2 specs
>>3. The National Cancer Institute's 508 Tutorial for style sheets: 
>>http://oc.nci.nih.gov/web508/tut-d.html
>>4. IBM's Accessibility Center info on style sheets: 
>>http://www-3.ibm.com/able/css.html
>>
>>
>>I look forward to comments.
>>
>>--wendy
>>--
>>wendy a chisholm
>>world wide web consortium
>>web accessibility initiative
>>seattle, wa usa
>>tel: +1 206.706.5263
>>/--
>
>--
>Jo Miller
>jo@bendingline.com

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
/--
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 11:49:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT