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

Re: belittling designers, two kinds of accessibility

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:00:55 -0400
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001025091919.03fdef00@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 10:49 AM 2000-10-22 +0100, David Woolley wrote:
>However, HTML was.  Presentational hypertext was well established before
>HTML.  The web already existed.  Internet sites had existed for a long time.
>If the aim had been to produce the current commercial web, T B-L would have
>gone into partnership with Adobe, whose PDF was well beyond HTML version 
>3.2 in terms of the features desired by commercial sites with the one 
>exception of network integration, even at that time.
>Instead, the first HTML specification says this (T B-L's own words):
>   It is required that HTML be a common language between all platforms.
>   This implies no device-specific markup, or anything which requires
>   control over fonts or colors, for example. This is in keeping with the
>   SGML ideal.
>HTML Design Constraints
>> user agent that implemented hyperlinks encoded as URI references.  Tim us=
>> ed
>I think a more correct description of the design essence was simplicity,
>as quoted in the following:
>   for their documents. A few were using SGML. Tim realized that
>   something simpler was needed that would cope with dumb terminals
>   through high end graphical X Windows workstations. HTML was conceived
>   as a very simple solution, and matched with a very simple network
>   protocol HTTP.
>HTML Home Page


Good job.  Well researched and well put.

But that's history.  Now the genie is out of the bottle; the essential
value-adding quality of global connectedness has caught the attention of the
world at large.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  The first Web was a sparse plasma
approaching a hard vacuum in terms of the richness of human communication.

Some of ways Tim's initial "running code" was simple may not be sustainable. 
The "desires of commercial interests" reflect not just Big Bad Business but a
balancing act between the preferences of both producers and consumers.  

Rich media is part of the consensus between them.  We most likely won't be
to roll that back.  We can opportunistically jump on the mobile bandwagon,
where there is market pressure to simplify
hop/>.  But to be endemic in how the World is Webbing, we need technical
solutions that meet high stylistic fidelity standards as well as high access

Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2000 12:35:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC