- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 18:45:31 -0700
- To: "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
- Cc: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 08:30 AM 7/1/1999 , Bruce Bailey wrote: >And a not entirely theoretical question.. >Can a site claim AA conformance without using CSS? Another question is "if you use tables at all for layout" (such as http://www.hwg.org/ or http://www.kynn.com/) "can you ever get a Double-AA rating?" 3.6 says to use CSS for layout. 5.3 says to use tables for layout only when they make sense when linearized. Both are priority 2. Proper use of tables according to 5.3 means you aren't following 3.6, right? I continue to have worries that the vague wording of 3.6 and the requirement that CSS _must_ be used for formatting and layout (instead of alternatives that web authors are familiar with, such as tables) means that for nearly any commercial site out there, at best a Single-A rating is possible if they feel there is a commercial disadvantage to using CSS. Why's this matter? Why not just say "okay, so they'll be Single-A"? Because the granularity of the compliance rating system means that if you don't get one, you don't have an incentive to try for the others. In other words, if you simply _can't_ comply with this one priority 2 checkpoint ("use CSS for layout"), then why bother complying with the others? You will still be only a "Single-A" compliance site no matter what else you do... -- Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Sunday, 4 July 1999 21:49:39 UTC