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 10:28:22 -0600
Message-ID: <2FECE9363D811B418C3F282834F172A56DBD33@PIKESPEAK.corp.ecl>
To: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, Jo Miller <jo@bendingline.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I was working on that last night and felt it would go best under "Author
Benefits" because it can go far in ensuring user and user agent independence
with the same content and code set. Under "User Benefits" it's basically
covered with the first bullet point.

Though I agree with the cross-over with platform independence and WML,
PocketIE can handle standard HTML fairly well, and Opera's new agreement
with Symbian is really aluding to the support of standarized markup even on
"mobile" devices.

Perhaps an additional bullet item, expanding on the idea of "user agent
independence", showing how content that complies with the WCAG 2.0 is likely
accessible on new Internet devices?

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 10:25 AM
To: Joel Sanda; Jo Miller; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: [CSS-TECHS]



agreed that we need to show the bigger picture.
In general, we have tried to build this case in the guideline/checkpoint 
layer (although we've been less focused on it lately).
It would be good to echo it in the technology-specific layers as well.
Although, it seems to me that those who are building for 
device-independence (particularly phones and PDAs) are using other final 
form languages like WML and VoiceML.
There is a device-independence working group within the W3C and we will be 
sure to ask their review of this document once it is further along.

Joel,
Is there a specific place or specific text that you would like to add to 
the CSS document?  Perhaps something in the "Why?" section, most likely 
under "Author benefits."

Could you boil this down to a couple bullet points?

Jo - your thoughts?

--wendy

At 11:49 AM 7/18/01 , Joel Sanda wrote:
>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
>/--

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
/--
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 12:28:27 GMT

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