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: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:11:00 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050502150048.022324b8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

In CSS2.1, content may be generated by two mechanisms:

(a) the "content" property (in conjunction with the :before and :after 
pseudo-elements)

(b) elements with a value of "list-item" for the "display" property

How are such mechanisms to be treated in WCAG2.0?   More specifically, is 
the use of such mechanisms to be encouraged or merely tolerated in the 
context of web content accessibility?

  (At 11:00 AM 5/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>Responding to my post, Joe writes:
>
><blockquote>
>And I keep explaining to the Working Group that structure and
>presentation
>can never be totally separated even in theory. The use of, for example,
>CSS background images and the :before and :after property are examples
>of
>the commingling of presentation and structure.
></blockquote>
>
>Agreed. The challenge to authors remains: to ensure that the information
>they want to communicate doesn't become imperceptible. Using valid code
>in and of itself may not accomplish that in all cases. (This is not
>about whether or not a Certain Browser should support the :before and
>:after properties; of course it should.)
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>"Good design is accessible design."
>John Slatin, Ph.D.
>Director, Accessibility Institute
>University of Texas at Austin
>FAC 248C
>1 University Station G9600
>Austin, TX 78712
>ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
>email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
>web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
>Behalf Of Joe Clark
>Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:35 am
>To: WAI-GL
>Subject: RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality,
>and structure are separable from presentation"
>
>
>
> > It seems to me we're trying to ensure that neither "information" nor
> > structure is "lost" through being inappropriately bound up in
> > presentation.
>
>And I keep explaining to the Working Group that structure and
>presentation
>can never be totally separated even in theory. The use of, for example,
>CSS background images and the :before and :after property are examples
>of
>the commingling of presentation and structure.
>
> > By "structure" I mean the way "informaiton" is organized, as expressed
> > in whatever code the author's chosen technology requires.
>
>For HTML documents and tagged PDF, there is nothing we can require
>beyond
>what the standardistas have been doing for four years while the Working
>Group has been asleep at the wheel: Using valid, semantic HTML.
>
> > As I said in an earlier post, the problem isn't that someone might be
> > silly enough to publish an empty document.  The problem is that
> > someone might publish content that some users would perceive while
> > other users would find the "same" content completely *imperceptible*
> > solely by reason of their disability.
>
>Then get them to lobby the makers of their adaptive technology to render
>
>CSS background images and :before and :after content (to use two
>examples)
>in a way they can handle.
>
>Using HTML and CSS *to spec* may cause accessibility problems in *user
>agents* that are not the purview of the Web *Content* Accessibility
>Guidelines Working Group.
>
> > I believe that the intent of GL 1.3 is to guard against that
> > possibility, and the success criteria should define what must be true
> > of content in order to accomplish the goal.
>
>The success criteria have been proposed and are not something this
>Working
>Group is going to be able to meaningfully change. The minimum criterion
>is
>also the maximum criterion: Use valid, semantic HTML.
>
>--
>
>      Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
>      Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>        --This.
>        --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Monday, 2 May 2005 19:18:16 UTC

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