W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

Fwd: Re: [css techs] new draft for discussion, list of to dos (Comments)

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:24:38 +0200 (MEST)
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <29987.1091874278@www47.gmx.net>

Hello together,


well, two weeks ago I despairingly sent some comments to the list, but
scanning the new CSS techniques WD [1] I saw none of them to be considered
-- was this intended (please better tell me then, if you think those remarks
are wrong or unnecessary), or only by accident?

Nonetheless, while I might agree that my second comment ('blinking' issue)
was maybe a little bit overshot, I have to repeat the request to 'revise'
issues  1.9 (now 1.2 [2]) and 3.6 (now 13.1 [3]).

And while 1.2 is not that important (I only suggested to add the 'border'
property, too, for example), 13.1 really lacks that semantics I mentioned,
CMIIW. I can (along with overdue 'complex content' definition) provide an
alternative example, no problem.

(I of course feel 'obliged' to read the new WDs again and will send
additional comments later, if any.)


All the best,
 Jens.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/#units-for-static
[3]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/#absolute-positioning



--- Weitergeleitete Nachricht / Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:54:32 +0200 (MEST)
From: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css techs] new draft for discussion, list of to dos (Comments)

Some comments...

In 1.9 [1] it is said 'Use px for properties that do not need to change:
height and width of raster images, and margins'. -- I propose to add the
'border' (property) as well since it conveys no 'meaning' and since it's not
crucial to be displayed. The padding might be taken into consideration, too.

Next, in 1.18 [2] it is said 'Underline, overlink, or blink with
'text-decoration''. -- I'm not sure if it's wise to refer to any blink
effect. Though we only allow any blinking if it's stoppable [3], I'm
concerned of the (CMIWW) uncontrollable way user-agents might visualize this
effect (though this might be quite hypothetically).

If any of them crosses the e.g. five-flashes-per-second threshold, we cannot
take the responsibility for this. I propose to rethink this issue, if there
really are imponderabilities to expect.

Last, in 3.6 (Providing structural markup for graceful degradation) [4], the
first example lacks semantics. Normally you should use, for example, a list
(or nested lists, respectively) for this purpose, and <div /> and <span />
elements convey no meaning in markup here. I propose to use lists instead.


All the best,
 Jens.


[1]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040719.html#units-for-static
[2]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040719.html#text-decoration
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-movement
[4]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040719.html#absolute-positioning


-- 
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect (IxD)

http://meiert.com/
Received on Saturday, 7 August 2004 10:25:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC