- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:32:07 -0400
- To: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Dear WAI GL Group, I respectfully request consideration and discussion that the Priority level of certain checkpoints in the WCAG be conditional. The WCAG is already a fluid document in that it uses the phrase "until user agents" frequently. I believe that it is appropriate to extend this thinking to at least a few checkpoints. I will critique checkpoints 3.3 and 3.7 in particular. The purpose of this would be to make it easier for current sites which are perfectly accessible (and "Bobby Approved") to achieve AA WCAG conformance rating. The justification is to allow something of a modest reinforcement to those who have been championing universal design for years before the WCAG was released. Specifically, I propose that 3.3 be changed to: 3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. [Priority 2 for the strict HTML 4.0 DTD, Priority 3 otherwise] This is justified because it would allow ACCESSIBLE documents (that adhere to the 3.2 / 4.0 transitional DTD) to achieve AA rating. As the WCAG is written now, one cannot achieve AA without using CSS. The importance and appropriateness of CSS is reinforces several times throughout the WCAG, but this checkpoint, as it is written, is a little too strict. One could also avoid ALL elements AND attributes that affect presentation (like align=center), but this is too strict too -- and still would require a massive rewrite of most pages that are perfectly accessible (and "Bobby Approved"). Most authors, include those who are interested in writing accessible pages, are loathe to give up ALL of there basic layout controls, especially when we know that many can be used WITHOUT detracting from accessibility. I also propose that 3.7 be changed: 3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation. [Priority 3 until user agents better support the <Q> tag, otherwise Priority 2] Another possibility is to split this checkpoint into <BLOCKQUOTE> [Priority 2] and <Q> [Priority 3]. I agree with trying to reduce the abuse of the <BLOCKQUOTE> tag, but it strikes me as patently absurd to put so much emphasis on <Q> when the modern GUI support is so abysmal (Lynx handles it fine BTY). How can a currently unsupported feature be more accessible than using ASCII (neutral) marks? How is something that will typically not be rendered (and therefore be invisible) be "better" than a convention that has worked fine for decades? <RANT>Mind you, I love the <Q> element and cannot for the life of figure out why is was not included sooner, nor why the 4x versions of the major browsers don't support it! Personally, I absolutely HATE neutral quote marks. They are on the top of my list of typographical pet peeves.</RANT> At the risk of having one of my favorite techniques condemned by the WCAG, I will also point out that 3.7 should be expanded to explicitly also shun use of “ and “ and “ and the like. Finally, let me conclude by saying that I do appreciate how forward looking the WCAG 1.0 is. Along with others, I missed the opportunity to critique the assignment of Priority levels and I did not comprehend the consequences of missing even one Priority 2 checkpoint. I recognize that it is probably too late to edit a "stable" W3C recommendation. Perhaps what I really want is come conditional element to the application of the Conformance Logos (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance) so that sites which were perfectly accessible before the WCAG came out, can at least claim AA compliance. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Bruce Bailey http://www.dors.state.md.us/
Received on Thursday, 22 July 1999 11:33:52 UTC