W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Checkpoint 3.6: Big Hurdle for Double-AA/Triple-AAA Compliance

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 22:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <006201bec904$17e09940$64520518@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
if we are having this much of a problem interpreting the guidelines, just
think how much trouble lay people in the field are having - not fun!


----- Original Message -----
From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Checkpoint 3.6: Big Hurdle for Double-AA/Triple-AAA Compliance

> It is easy to read absurdities into the guidelines by considering
> individual checkpoints in abstraction from their context in the document
> as a whole. However, this is not an appropriate strategy of
> interpretation. I do not wish to imply that anyone has been
> misinterpreting the text deliberately. Rather, I would suggest that the
> tendency to concentrate on each checkpoint in isolation, for the purpose
> of judging compliance, naturally leads to the overlooking of important
> contextual details.
> Thus, if checkpoint 5.4 is read together with checkpoint 5.3, then it is
> clear that the uses of structural markup to create visual effects, against
> which 5.4 is directed, do not include the employment of tables for layout
> purposes as such, but comprise only the making of certain markup
> distinctions (such as between TH and TD elements) which imply structure,
> in cases where the author's intention is to force certain visual effects.
> The example in checkpoint 5.4 makes this clear.
> Similarly, checkpoints 5.3 and 3.3 can be read consistently with each
> other. Indeed, the note accompanying checkpoint 5.3 makes it clear that
> the use of tables for layout is a short-term exception to the requirement
> specified in checkpoint 3.3 that style sheets be used to control layout
> and presentation.
> No doubt, one could attempt to rewrite the guidelines so as to make all of
> the interrelationships among checkpoints explicit. The question to be
> considered, however, is whether the added complexity which would thus be
> introduced, is warranted, and whether there are significant and genuine
> ambiguities that need to be addressed. The role of the "techniques
> document" in clarifying the guidelines is also relevant, in that it
> provides more detailed discussion of the requirements which are succinctly
> expressed in the latter text.
> Please note that all opinions expressed in this message are mine alone and
> do not purport to reflect any discussion or consensus which may or may not
> have emerged in the Web Content Guidelines working group.
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 1999 22:43:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:05 UTC