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

Re: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <006501bed14f$574f7800$64520518@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman@clark.net>
Cc: "IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
hey dave,

normally one specification is the correct and final authority.  any other
supporting documents must be written to the master guideline.  For example,
if you have a contract that has a table.  The table is there to provide a
better understanding;however it was written to the text.  Therefore, in
contracts, never base your decision on the table, make sure it matched the
text.

The master document must be correct, and since the guidelines are the W3C
Recommendation, they must be sound and correct.  You cannot build supporting
documents that conflict with the recommendation.

As for applying some intelligence to solve problems, i am all for that,
except when those guidelines may be recommended verbatim by the ACCESS Board
and then enforced by the United States Government or any government for that
matter.  If they are enforceable, then they better be right along with the
supporting documents or else the WAI will look real foolish when the web
developers start asking the same questions we have been asking!  Think of us
as the test case scenario!

Until there is a rating board or trained people, we rate ourselves, which is
like letting the fox guard the henhouse.  We will interpret these the way we
want until we have a tight guideline.

rob

----- Original Message -----
From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
To: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Cc: IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>; Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 1999 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3


> we must look at the total picture here.  the guidelines and
> checkpoints serve as guides.  some intellegence must be applied in
> order to solve problems of ambeguity or seeming conflict in the
> guidelines and yes, some need to be stated differently.  does the
> curriculum help here?  Context is very very important here.  Don't
> take one guideline or one checkpoint and try to generalize the bejesus
> out of it.
>
> Robert Neff wrote:
> >
> > I do not doubt the CSS's usability.  I question why I am being forced to
use
> > CSS to obtain a Double A conformance level.  I can make a web page that
is
> > accessible using HTML 3.2 and 4.  Before the recommendation, I had done
that
> > at Department of Labor before CSS was widely used, see
> > http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/programs/dbra/index.html.  I had
designed
> > a layout without tables for formatting and in HTML 4 Transitional.  This
was
> > the closest thing to adopting over 90% of the checkpoints.  BUT I used
HTML
> > not  CSS.  If I were still there, I would be livid about Checkpoint 3.3.
> > Now all of a sudden I have to switch because another language is wanted.
> > CSS has design guidelines and so does HTML and both must be properly
> > applied.
> >
> > I cannot support a recommendation that disallows other methodologies
that
> > can be made accessible.
> >
> > By the way, how does Checkpoint 3.3 apply when I want to make a HTML
page
> > that is text only and use HTML 3.2 with no deprecated items and follow
the
> > rest of the guidelines except Checkpoint 3.3? For example, except for
> > Checkpoint 3.3, I am Triple A.  This is like telling me I MUST purchase
a
> > new car when an used one will do!
> >
> > This is a note to Jamie (Are you monitoring?): Now that you are running
the
> > Davis-Bacon site, if it wasn't for checkpoint 3.3, how close are you to
> > Triple A conformance?
> >
> > Basically, my position is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG)
> > should change Checkpoint 3.3 to say, "Use CSS where possible."  If you
have
> > not read the WCAG yet, then wake-up and realize that you will be
required to
> > use CSS to obtain a Double A conformance rating.  If you are associated
with
> > the United States Government then expect the Federal Government to adopt
the
> > WCAG next year.  Does anyone have any comments on this?  Your opinions
do
> > matter.
> >
> > Are there any other government efforts or other efforts to adopt Double
A?
> >
> > rob
>
> --
> Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> Touching The Internet:
> mailto:poehlman@clark.net
> Voice: 301.949.7599
> ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
> http://poehlman.clark.net
> Dynamic Solutions Inc.
> Best of service
> for your small business
> network needs!
> http://www.dnsolutions.com
>
> ---sig off---
>
Received on Sunday, 18 July 1999 12:02:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC