W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: A new iconography?

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:29:45 -0400
Message-ID: <AF196F44735ED411B93A00508BDFB1080E4327@WDCROBEXC09>
To: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Why are we debating this?  It seems black and white to me, 
>> but the popular
>> response has been to suggest changing the guidelines rather 
>> than facing up
>> to and acknowledging the problem.
> 
> The guideline as written says that if there is a suitable replacement,
> then use it; if not, then use the images.  There is not a suitable
> replacement at the moment (I know you refuse to believe this, but
> it's true), so if you want it to be "black and white" then 
> the guideline
> as written needs to be changed.

It is perfectly ridiculous to argue that the phrase <Q>When an appropriate
markup language exists</Q> could be used to exclude CSS 	when "style
sheets" is explicitly referenced twice in the following two sentences!  CSS
has attributes that were specifically included for the formatting of
textual-links-as-buttons.  Granted, the support for style sheets by
Navigator (and earlier versions of IE) is severely lacking.  This does not
mean that we should give up advocating that pages be coded properly,
especially for sites interested in AA compliance!  We should also continue
working on Microsoft and Netscape to release standards compliant browsers.

Kynn, please also explain what you meant by:
> PS:  Have you ever noticed that there is absolutely no difference
> between priority 2 and priority 1 requirements?

I believe the premise of the "Kynn Challenge" (that a site can be P1
compliant without significant impact on its superficial graphical
presentation).
Would you argue that this is (or should be) true of AA conformance?
Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 16:30:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT