- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
- cc: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Bruce, I think that the needs you are articulating are already incoporated in the document. Checkpoint 11.1 specifically requires graceful transformation for technologies which do not have sufficient implementation support. At the very least, there is currently no enforcement, and a reasonable argument can be made that the Q element is not widely supported. SImilarly, within CSS there is provision to include the presentational elements of HTML in the cascade of styles. Where a style sheet is used alongside presentational HTML, to provide a graceful transformation of the look and feel in older browsers, that probably meets the requirement. I would suggest that the use of tables does not fall into this category, since they conflict with the use of CSS for layout. An important thing to consider is that however you choose to present your material, the appropriate use of structured markup is what allows user agents to present a site appropriately, be that for a modern dektop computer with large screen, fast connections and up-to-date software, an older computer with slower hardware, smaller screen, fewer colours (it is amazing how different things can look in 256 colours) and an old browser, or a mobile phone based system which mixes a tiny screen, small keyboard, speech input and output with a specially designed browser using significant transformation of the content to render it to the user in the most appropraite fashion. And of course I will reiterate that the primary concern of the guidelines is what must/should/may be done to improve the accessibility of web content, not its marketability, since in general that lies outside the scope of the guidelines. If people choose to put a priority on how they are told something will be seen which is higher than the priority on whether people can really use it then the problem is well beyond the scope of the guidelines group. Just my 2 centimes worth Charles McCN On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Bruce Bailey wrote: 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/ --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Thursday, 22 July 1999 12:26:06 UTC