Re: Checkpoint 3.3

Any other time I would agree with you, but as a minimum "requiring CSS"
should be Priority 3 and Triple A.  The federal government is expected to
require Double A

In Priority 2, I can still use Tables from HTML and no depracated fonts to
be Double A.  You do not realize how much tables are a part of the lifeblood
for desgin and browsers have not caught up, that is presentation and layout.
Maybe in several years when people have transitioned to newer browsers and
technology has caught up, but not yet..  CSS is not the solution - we must
deal with tables and HTML for a bit longer.

As Tables are heavily used AND given CSS is not trusted AND the CSS skill
set is not there, then what would you suggest?  This is the biggest
challenge we have in the conversion of new users to Double AA.  They want to
use tables for layout and want to resize their font or use font size in
browsers.

rob

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Checkpoint 3.3


> Without using style sheets, and without confusing the distinction between
> structure and presentation, there are few means available in current HTML
> technology by which to control layout and presentation while maintaining
> correct document structure. Visual presentation is, however, important;
> and this is why style sheets should be used. The guidelines are careful to
> require that only style language features supported by user agents be
> employed. Support for CSS has existed in major browsers for at least the
> past two years, and though it is inconsistent, it is steadily improving.
>
> I would strongly oppose any attempt to remove or otherwise erode the
> requirement specified in checkpoint 3.3, due to the importance of style
> sheets as the only technology which supports rich visual (or auditory)
> presentation, with retention of the document's logical structure and
> markup semantics.
>
> The simplest solution to the practical problem would be to require
> existing web sites to be repaired up to level A conformance, whereas new
> web sites (or existing web sites when their content is substantially
> updated) must achieve double-A conformance. This is an issue that should
> be addressed to policy developers; the guidelines must conform to their
> own goals and definitions, and should not be unduly influenced by whatever
> problems may arise for developers if government policies are formulated
> which do not adequately address the issue of compliance costs.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 1999 00:51:58 UTC