- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:47:52 -0500
- To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:21 +1000, Ben Boyle wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > All of these are subjective conformance criteria that are key > > accessibility questions. > > > > All of these also apply to HTML4 documents. > > > > I see no way to make these anything but subjective. How do you suggest we > > address these problems? > > I suggest leaving them to WCAG, to avoid repetition and potential > conflict (should WCAG in some incompatible way). That's one of the more interesting suggestions I've seen in this discussion. It seems like a good way to reduce our workload by leveraging work done elsewhere. > > * Using <h1> to identify a header rather that big text. > "Sections should be introduced with the HTML heading elements (H1-H6). > Other markup may complement these elements to improve presentation > (e.g., the HR element to create a horizontal dividing line), but > visual presentation is not sufficient to identify document sections." > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#document-headers > > > * Using <cite> for works, not quotations. > There are generic WCAG criteria (use markup properly) but nothing > specific to address this. "Use markup properly" implies that HTML5 > need to define "proper" I guess, so we keep this? But every element > has a defined purpose, does that necessitate a need to turn each into > conformance criteria? (It might??) Maybe we are just identifying > common mistakes (i.e. where authors need guidance)... I'd like to see > them bundled into WCAG though. Probably just as extra techniques for > the relevant guidelines. > > > * Using <em> for emphasis, not italics. > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#text-emphasis > > > * Using <ins> to indicate inserted text, not underlines. > as with cite, this is the definition of ins. > > > * Using tables for tabular data, not layout. > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-avoid-table-for-layout > > > > * Providing correct header/cell associations with header="" and scope="". > HTML5 gives us the rules and algorithms - how this works. WCAG > provides conformance definitions: > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#identifying-table-rows-columns > > > * Including appropriate alternative text in alt="". > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#image-text-equivalent > > > * Associating the right form control with <label for="">. > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#forms-labels > > > All of these are subjective conformance criteria that are key > > accessibility questions. > > And all of these were documented back in WCAG 1.0 > > I don't understand why we don't just leave it in WCAG ~:) > I'm sure there's a reason, I just don't know it. > > cheers > Ben -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 20:47:04 UTC