W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: CSS Techniques for WCAG 2.0

From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:41:45 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B9FD6A9C@misnts16.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> From: RUST Randal
> It is much easier to understand a recommendation such
> as XHTML 1.0 than WCAG 1.0 (or 2.0).

Because XHTML's spec is a technical one. And there again, there's
more than just technical details behind XHTML...what I'd refer to
as the "ethos". E.g. using H1-H6 instead of non-structural markup.
Yes, you can validate against the syntax of the language itself, but
you can still write complete rubbish nonetheless. That's why there's
similar discussions on other lists about "is this the right way to
mark this type of content up?".

> WCAG needs to be practical and measurable. And measuring results needs
> to be simple, just like validating markup.

Again, because WCAG is more than just a set of technical
specs relating to syntax, whose validity can be verified
programmatically, checking for accessibility will always require
interpretation by (hopefully) knowledgeable individuals. Coupled with
the huge number of possible "real world" scenarios, there will always
be certain gray areas. Maybe we need a lot more best practice examples,
but at the core I don't think it will be possible (or easy anyway) to
pin all the points down for definite.

As always, IMHO anyway.

Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 12:43:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:29 UTC