W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: The RNIB replies to web design criticism

From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:12:06 +0100
Message-ID: <003501c34d68$dda32520$ca33f7c2@laptop>
To: "Isofarro" <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

From: "Isofarro" <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
Subject: The RNIB replies to web design criticism


> I really wanted to initiate a discussion on the reply given by the RNIB on
> their website. Reading their answers, I feel more confused and concerned
> than ever.

The particular points I found "interesting" were:

"HTML is not inherently inaccessible, nor is XHTML and CSS inherently
accessible."

This is confusing. It could be construed that HTML is more accessible than
XHTML (I certainly seem to be reading it that way).

"support for CSS positioning (particularly when we started working on this
design some time ago) was not sufficiently robust for us to move completely
to CSS for positioning and formatting. In some respects, it still isn't"

They pick up one flawed example - mine, but ignore the other two.

On using tables for layout
"WAI recommends using tables for data only but this is a recommendation
only"

Since the WCAG 1.0 is a technical recommendation, that kinda means - using
this line of reasoning - that none of the checkpoints apply.

Am I reading too much into checkpoint 3.3
url:http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-style-sheets "Use style sheets
to control layout and presentation."?


On the bright side, they've realised that alt="" is the better alternative
text for spacer images (which shouldn't be used anyway, IMO, especially for
a new design).
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 16:10:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT