W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2001

Accessibility (was: Excluding declarations from the cascade)

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:14:01 +0300
Message-ID: <A35E2040C17F0C48B941B8F4D0DF122908E32E@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
Hallo again Bjoern,
 
Um... I gave it a second pass, maybe we can agree somewhere in the
middle. On my first post, I didn't considered the accessibility value
behind this. I still support the considerations I mentioned on my
previous post, but I would support this functionality (actually, I am
very interested in even participating) on something as the following.
The selection of a subset of css (font, color and background properties
only) is more than accurate. 
 
This "Accessibility Profile" can be resolved without the css authors.
All a WG has to do is:
 
1) Define the subset of properties to participate in such a model
 
2) Provide alternative schemes to any possible style for browser vendors
to implement.
 
This will allow *users* to override certain style rools by clicking a
checkbox in their browser and depending on their dissability (color
blindness or poor vision).
 
I have to admit I was only thinking only the screen and print mediatypes
(thus the subset of properties I proposed).
 
Kindest regards,
 
Manos
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Manos Batsis 
Sent: Δευ 20/8/2001 1:18 πμ 
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-style@w3.org 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Excluding declarations from the cascade



	That would instantly bring up the need of authors to define
alternative
	style of rendering in case of a specific @exclude (or any
syntax). Even
	then, an author will have to do some serious thinking on style
	combinations. If I have a red background with a red border and
the
	@exclude encountered doesn't like the background, maybe my
alternative
	blue background will work but it will not look good with the red
border.
	Just an example but you get the point.
	
	Kindest regards,
	
	Manos
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Bjoern Hoehrmann
	Sent: Κυρ 19/8/2001 8:27 μμ
	To: www-style@w3.org
	Cc:
	Subject: Excluding declarations from the cascade
	
	
	
	        Hi,
	       
	           Current CSS features allow the user some control over
the
	        presentation of documents, but it's a rather limited
control.
	For
	        example some users don't like 'text-decoration: blink'
others
	don't
	        like 'position: fixed', 'background-attachment: fixed',
'cursor:
	        crosshair', etc.pp. CSS allows you only to demand a
specific
	        presentation, you cannot exclude some property/value
	combinations. For
	        example, to get rid of 'position: fixed' I can only
write
	       
	          * { position: static !important }
	       
	        but this would override all values for the position
property I
	_want_ to
	        allow, and this would cause problems. Consider
	       
	         * { text-decoration: none !important }
	       
	        and the author defines
	       
	         obsololete { text-decoration: line-through }
	       
	        the presentation would break. I like to see some feature
in CSS
	Level 3
	        that allows me to exclude distinct values for specific
	properties
	        instead of overriding them.
	       
	        A possible syntax could be a new at-rule, e.g.
	       
	          @exclude {
	            :link, :visited { text-decoration: none
}
	            *               { position: fixed
}
	            body            { background-attachment: fixed
}
	            p               { color: silver; background-color:
white }
	          }
	       
	        but maybe others can come up with some better
suggestions.
	       
	        regards,
	        --
	        Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de }
	http://www.bjoernsworld.de
	        am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 {
	http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
	        25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 }
	http://www.learn.to/quote/
	       
	       
	
	
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 19:13:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT