W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: rationalize presentation [was: Use consistent presentation]

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 17:52:44 +1100
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBBBJPNFCLNLAADCLFJBOEBGDEAA.gdeering@acslink.net.au>
I feel this is an important distinction.  WCAG2 seems to have advanced quite
a way from WCAG1 in the way it now focuses accessibility issues for online
producers.  To me, WCAG2 does not seem like a clarification of WCAG1, which
is what was originally intended, but a redefining and refinement of core
issues of Web Content Accessibility.

It seems a powerful statement that WCAG2 starts with Guideline 1; putting
the focus back on the users needs and preferences.  This was one of the main
objectives of CSS; the power of design, so that the author based design
could easily be overridden or substituted by the users own CSS.  This seems
to be lost on most of the web designers.  If this is lost on most web
designers, it is difficult enough for them to come to terms with a model
where the user is actually in control of the form and how they assimilate
the content.

It is very hard as a designer to feel that your site could or should be
"skinned" (have another CSS wrapper put around it, other than your own).
This is an ideal, but very hard to achieve or deliver for the simple reason
of using abstract class definitions that a base User CSS will not implement.
Still basic declarations like font properties, etc, should be able to be

What strikes me most about WCAG2 as compared with WCAG1 is the refocusing
back on marking up content to facilitate full accessibility to all users.
With such focus in WCAG2 on user control, there seems to be an implicit
statement that presentation markup follows strict guidelines and syntax
(correct use of CSS / XSL), and these are the type of guidelines that say;
"Markup your document's presentation style in such a way that users can
enforce their own style and rules on your documents and sites".

If this is the intention, what are the cases for using navigation bars
comprised of graphic images?  It seems in WCAG2 we have gone beyond that,
saying now that there is an appropriate markup for navigation
(HTML/XML/CSS/XSL), graphic text images are obsolete.

Is this the implication?  Or am I missing something?

Geoff Deering

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Al Gilman
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2002 3:15 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: rationalize presentation [was: Use consistent presentation]

Well, we are building a problem for ourselves as soon as we use
'consistent' as
the headline.  This sends too superficial a message.  It creates an
that consistency of appearance is the success criterion, whereas this is not
the point.  What we are after is a consistent relationship between
in appearance and distinctions in the rhetoric of the site content.

The success criterion here is that most presentation differences within the
site can be explained by a systematic binding [pattern of relationship] of
presentation effects to one consistent set of organizing principles across
whole site.  The organizing principles cover concepts not only of parts of
whole but also kinds of stuff found here.  This includes both similarities
differences.  It is possible to quantify this criterion with entropy

What the content provider should accomplish is a balance of a dominant core
rationality - functional application of effects - and a light ripple of
- un-rationalized variation - to combat highway hypnosis.

If we just say "rationalize your presentation" and people do this to the
the result _will_ be boring.  A modicum of reasonableness is required in
how we
try to get people to curb their wildest flights of fancy and employ
in presentation.

The rational core (of presentation decisions) follows the XAG injunctions:
- have a model
- bind the model to interface specifics
- stick to this plan
- share the reasoning for those who have to re-bind

Changes in presentation are rocks that turn over.  People expect to find
information under those rocks.  When there is no sense to the change, then
distinctions are treated as senseless.  The consistent styling of navbars
to indicate the consistent functional role that they play across different
pages will be defeated if one does not at the same time hold to a dull roar
changes in presentation that are _not_ explainable by site-organizing

What Gian has had trouble selling to his customers is good design.
presentation for exceptional circumstances.  It is all backed up by a
well-developed design concept or model.  But the neanderthals with the money
don't have a basis for judging what is a bona-fide exceptional circumstance,
unfortunately.  So they cling to shallow rules that actually work against
application of the better, deeper, rule.

Not a problem with a simple answer, because in many situations we need to
on the funding authorities to sit on the heads of the designers and make
exercise some discipline in addressing access issues.


At 07:07 PM 2002-01-03 , gian@stanleymilford.com.au wrote:
>I think we had a very productive meeting this morning.
>On the subject of consistency of presentation, I think what we are
>trying to say (while still following our own guideline 14.1!) is that
>the presentation is similar in design throughout the entire site, and
>over a finite period of time (as in, one does not expect the
>presentation to continually change on a week-to-week basis).  I did go
>talk to one of our graphics designers and he did not like the word
>'predictable'!  So perhaps we can consider other words.  A search in the
>thesaurus for predictable found:
>- obvious
>- unsuprising
>- expected
>- anticipated
>- evident
>- observable
>A search in the thesaurus for consistent found:
>- reliable
>- constant
>- uniform
>And secondly, on the actual amount of consistency, I have found myself
>arguing against the guidelines when discussing this checkpoint with
>project managers. For a large site I usually advocate the use of
>secondary navigation appearing when on a particular page (for an example
dhs.vic.gov.au/ds/disabilitysite.nsf/pages/prov vs
b.dhs.vic.gov.au/ds/disabilitysite.nsf/pages/prog or
ound.com.au/dev/ultra.html).  However when I
>suggest this I get checkpoint 13.4 thrown at me and told that it can't
>be done (usually I then ask why they have employed me if they aren't
>going to listen to me- as you can tell this is a sore point!).  So I
>believe we should somehow incorporate these navigational mechanisms into
>the guidelines, or at the very least, ensure that they aren't outlawed
>by the guidelines.  The other thing to consider is the use of breadcrumb
>trails (see:
>w~ or
>Breadcrumb trails are a very good way of indicating where in the site
>you are, especially for those sites that are very large.
>Happy New Year to everyone!
>Gian Sampson-Wild
>Member: Web Content Accessibility Group Working Group
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
>Stanley & Milford
>A Software Communication Group Company
>Level 16
>644 Chapel Street
>South Yarra VIC 3141
>Tel. 613 9826 5829
>Fax. 613 9826 8336
>Mob. 0404 498 030
>Email gian@stanleymilford.com.au
>This message contains privileged and confidential information intended
>only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the
>intended recipient of this message you must not disseminate, copy or
>take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in
>error, please notify Software Communication Group immediately. Any views
>expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except
>where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Software
>Communication Group.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 01:54:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC