Re: styling

Well, I don't see it as a loophole. We have discussed before that it is
possible to make all kinds of tools that are valuable for authoring but are
not accessible authoring tools as we have defined the term. Meeting any
particular checkpoint is a benefit that a tool provides, be it emacs allowing
me to select elements, Amaya allowing me to apply a user stylesheet for
editing that does not have any effect on the style of the published version,
or the accessiblity checking available in programs like HotDog and HoTMetaL.

Software that meets a number of checkpoints, without meeting any conformance
level, is clearly better than software that cannot meet any checkpoints. And
it may be that software development cycles mean we see an improvement in some
tools although the level of formal conformance does not change - indeed I
expect that will be the norm when there are a number of double-A conformant
tools around, that new versions may not get all the way to triple-A, but may
show substantial progress anyway (which means may be better tools for
accessibility, wich is the goal of the exercise).

Cheers

Charles McCN

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

  JR:: "(Most tools will pass this if they have notepad mode.)"
  
  WL: In relation to 4.5 this seems to be the case. I think there may be
  other places where this is also true, i.e. a text editor would pass
  muster *for that particular point* - but of course fail because of
  documentation or other failings. It seems like a bit of a loophole?
  
  
  --
  Love.
  ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

Received on Sunday, 27 August 2000 02:18:23 UTC