W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:19:50 +0200
Message-ID: <426F12E6.7010800@ubaccess.com>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
CC: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

My comments are in line with "lisa:" before them

Joe Clark wrote:

>
> Here is my attempt at rewriting 1.3. My tack here was to write success 
> criteria that applied mostly to structured formats, like (X)HTML and 
> tagged PDF, while allowing unstructured formats (JPEG, plain text) 
> where necessary, since they're not going to go away and are not 
> necessarily inaccessible.

lisa: In part   I disagree with this premise, In part I agree.
If  something is not inaccessible then it must be allowed in the 
guidelines - agreed.

If something is inaccessible then, we should try and disallow it. This 
will affect people chose of technology , although not always. when 
people chose an inaccessible technology they are going to be less 
accessible.

And, more important  these guidelines  do affect how technologies  such 
as flash, develop. A lot of effort  has been made  by companies  such 
as  macromedia (Flash)  on the platform level, to improve 
accessibility.The amount of  expensive changes to these technologies 
will be reduced if  the guidelines can be conformed to en without 
accessible technology,


>
>     Guideline 1.3
>     Where permitted by the markup languages
>     and technologies in use, ensure the separation of
>     structure, presentation, and behaviour.
>
> Every markup language (e.g., HTML) or technology (PDF) has limits 
> within which we must work, hence the phrase "where permitted."

lisa: I think it is clear that guidelines are to the extent that it is 
possible. Techniques should show the extent, and success criteria give 
the level required for conformance

> If you're using something like JPEG or plain text, the guideline 
> becomes inapplicable. I am not in favour of warping the guideline so 
> that the only thing you could ever use would be HTML. We know in 
> practice that the vast majority of Web pages will use HTML; we don't 
> have to gild the lily.
>
lisa: I am in favor of  creating guidelines that define accessibility, 
and hence guide technologies to become accessible

> WHY ISN'T "INFORMATION" IN THERE?
> Because we don't need it. It's tautological and unnecessary for the 
> competent Web developer.
>
lisa: I do not understand this - what is tautological?

> Further, the Introduction to our guidelines lays it out already: "This 
> document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web 
> content." We are writing the Web *Content* Accessibility Guidelines. 
> Content is information.

lisa: People are more likely to follow the guidelines then the advice in 
the introduction. I see the introduction as an overview and background, 
and there is no problem with things in the introduction being repeated 
in the guidelines.


All the best
Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 03:20:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC