W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Raw minutes from 22 Jan 2001 UAWG teleconference

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:31:32 -0500 (EST)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101240129040.25945-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't see the need to modify the existing style sheets. The CSS cascade
mechanism is carefully defined so that it is possible to build a simple
WYSIWYG-type interface to modify a particyular page's presentation, which the
Usser agnet generates as a user style sheet. The User agent could also
remember whether that is a general atyle sheet or one that is to ba
associated with that partiular page/site/whatever (not a requirement, but
good for bonus points).

This is just a smart way to implemenet (technique for) the various
checkpoints that require user control over various style features.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote:

  At 03:41 PM 2001-01-22 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
  >
  >4.Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? [This is
  >  checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.]
  >
  >  Source:
  ><http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448>http://
  server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448
  >  Refer to proposal from IJ:
  >   
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0099.html>http://
  lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0099.html
  >
  >  AG: I'm uncomfortable with the Note (may follow up).
  > 
  >  IJ: I think that user modification of author style sheets doesn't
  >  respect the intended cascade mechanisms.
  >
  >  EH: I think I agree with Ian's argument.
  >
  >  JG: Often, real browsers let you modify the computed value.
  >   
  >  Resolved: No change to the DOM 2 style requirement.
  >

  AG::

  For the user to create a derived-work stylesheet and view the author's content
  through this stylesheet, is, I would think, a "just use" within the general
  architectural division of labor that says "content" is essential to the
  communication of the correct information, and "style" is adjustable without
  changing the information.

  For the user to re-distribute the derived composite (author's content and
  user's edit of author's stylesheet) on any terms other than a duly permitted
  and credited derived work would be an infringement of the author's
  intellectual
  property rights.

  But for the User Agent to allow the user to take the author's stylesheet at
  any
  time and use it as the initial value for creating a user's stylesheet on the
  fly (while viewing the content) has such strong access advantages that the
  UAAG
  should not discourage it.  Many User Agents that are not authoring tools will
  not provide this capability.  But it is a) inappropriate and b) counter to our
  values for the User Agent Guidelines to say anything against it.  The
  limits on
  such activity are intellectual property policy over which the CSS
  Recommendation does not have jurisdiction, and where we would be making a
  mistake to act as though it does.

  Direct manipulation of the style properties of objects in an open Web
  document,
  is markedly superior in usability to offline creation of a stylesheet in a
  formal style language.  The idea that the user can write and install their own
  style sheet is enough to gain a WCAG A rating, but should not be considered to
  get us past that point.  It basically leaves a P2 level barrier in place.  The
  users who can actually do this would amount to a small fraction of those who
  could cope with the direct manipulation version.  For the User Agent to offer
  direct manipulation to fix access problems by giving the user edit control of
  the style layer of the in-DOM document image, starting from the baseline laid
  down by the author, is just a much better interface to what we have all agreed
  the user should be able to do.  Nothing that is trying to advance access
  should
  discourage the implementation of this better interface.

  Clearly the user should not be able to upload their derived stylesheet in a
  way
  that replaces thte author's stylesheet at the server and in distribution of
  the
  author's work.  Normally, the derived stylesheet created when the user edits
  the author's stylesheet would be saved as a new stylesheet.  But this need not
  be addressed by any provisions of the UAAG.

  Making, for your own use, a derived copy of the author's web page with an
  edited stylesheet is the intellectual property rough equivalent of having a
  copy of a published and printed book with handwritten marginal notes and
  yellow
  highlights in it.  Were the User Agent to offer style editing while
  browsing as
  a means to do this, it would be better, not inappropriate, User Agent
  functionality.  Let us not put the W3C in the indefensible and access-hostile
  position of discouraging such better practice.

  Al


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 01:31:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC