RE: Why CSS On Older Browsers Is Broken

Gregory,
I found your post (below) to be extremely well written.  It was persuasive
from a logical and emotional point of view.
It is not CSS which is broken, but rather the current crop of browsers.
If decent CSS support is taking so long, and content providers shun it
(typical chicken and egg problem), what hope is there for SVG?
I will add that I find it refreshing to be discussing an issue (textual
images) which is not generally an obstacle for the blind (assuming that the
ALT is done correctly), but one that is a significant barrier to persons
with another disability (low vision).  It is all the more interesting
because the WCAG does address the difficulty, and we do know how to fix
problem (unlike trying to make general content accessible to people with
learning disabilities).  Still, the resistance encountered (even among the
faithful) is remarkable!
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Bruce

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Gregory J. Rosmaita
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 12:51 AM
> To: Kynn Bartlett
> Cc: Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Why CSS On Older Browsers Is Broken
> 
> 
> kynn recently wrote, quote
> The problem facing web designers is not "making the textual 
> information 
> accessible", it's "making the page look like what I want it 
> to look like."
> unquote
> 
> if this is the aim of the graphic designer, then why aren't graphic 
> designers besieging the campuses of the major UA 
> manufacturers, INSISTING 
> on full support for CSS2, SVG, XSLT, SMIL, and the like? (at 
> least to the 
> base level of conformance outlined for each individual spec 
> which includes 
> a conformance section)
> 
> i find it hard to pity the plight of the graphically oriented 
> designer, 
> especially when, what we (as a group) are constantly being 
> told that what 
> they most want -- namely, that what they see when they design 
> a page is 
> what the end user will receive, have rendered, and perceive 
> when they visit 
> that page -- is ONLY feasible through adherence to standards, 
> and even 
> then, it will still always remain subject to variations in hardware, 
> nationalized versions of products, the situation under which 
> the content is 
> retrieved, etc.
> 
> so, i fail to see the point of castigating the WAI for being 
> insensitive 
> (or downright hostile) to the graphical components of web 
> design...  first 
> of all, it's page authoring, not graphical design that is 
> under discussion 
> -- there is nothing inherently visual slash graphical about 
> the web; that 
> today's web is overwhelmingly visually oriented is the product of 2 
> inter-related phenomena:
> 
> (1) a deeply ingrained predisposition for the visual -- "seeing is 
> believing" is the principle tenet of the visually oriented 
> (dare i say, 
> materialist, in the strictest sense of the word?) culture of 
> which today's 
> visually-oriented web is but a reflection; and
> 
> (2) it should come as no surprise that the use of visually 
> oriented tools 
> that, at heart, rely mainly upon the designer's hand-eye 
> co-ordination and 
> aesthetic sixth sense to create pages, leads to the 
> construction of pages 
> that only truly work as intended if they can be visually perceived -- 
> unless, of course, the author is willing to evaluate and 
> repair the output 
> of the tool used to create the page, which usually entails 
> editing document 
> source by hand...  no, i'm not insisting that every page 
> author be fluent 
> (or even conversant) in the markup languages that the tool 
> they are using 
> to create content for the web employs -- that would be as 
> ridiculous as 
> limiting driver's licences to someone who can completely 
> disassemble and 
> reassemble an automobile...  and yet, without the requisite 
> tools -- such 
> as an ATAG compliant authoring tool that automatically (where 
> possible) and 
> interactively (where there is no a priori solution) creates 
> pages that 
> contain (a) valid markup; (b) well-labeled and appropriate structural 
> elements; (c) content with which the user can interact in the 
> modality that 
> best fits that individual user's circumstances -- what's an 
> individual page 
> author to do?
> 
> the answer is quite simple: raise a ruckus...  complain to 
> the authoring 
> tool manufactures whenever their tool spits out invalid, 
> inaccessible, and 
> browser-dependent markup; complain to the user agent 
> developers about their 
> lack of support for standards (in whose drafting, i might 
> add, they played 
> a significant role), but don't come to the WAI complaining 
> that its members 
> just don't understand the needs of the visually dependent...  
> in the end, 
> kynn, what is more important?  that the visitor to your site 
> receive the 
> content you wish to share, or that your page is rendered with 
> absolute 
> fidelity on every machine that hits your page?  if your 
> concern as a page 
> author is the former, then i suggest you gather an army of 
> webmonsters and 
> lay siege to the UA and AU manufacturers -- or, at least, 
> lash yourselves 
> to their corporate flagpoles; otherwise, if you insist on 
> quote thinking 
> like a graphical artist unquote, my advice would be to stick 
> to a strictly 
> graphical medium, such as print, which can be used to deliver 
> "final form" 
> documents, in which the content is irreducibly wrapped an 
> immutable style 
> in order to be delivered to _passive_ recipients......
> 
> like it or not, the web is NOT, nor was it ever intended to 
> be, a graphical 
> medium -- that it is a medium that is capable of delivering 
> graphics is 
> part of what makes it a very powerful tool, but the essence 
> of the web is 
> communication, not decoration...  if i am accessing your content, why 
> should you care whether i appreciate your autumnal color scheme or 
> not?  what about someone accessing your page with a wireless, 
> monitorless 
> device?  yes, styling is part of the package, and has a place 
> in design, 
> but it should not be the make-or-break point for page 
> authors...  and if it 
> is, don't complain to the WAI -- complain to those whose 
> support for CSS is 
> either broken or absent...  and get used to the fact that an 
> increasing 
> number of people don't care one whit what stylistic devices 
> are employed on 
> a web site -- they want content, not color schemes and stylistic 
> effects...  yes, attention to stylistic detail and the 
> development of a 
> consistent quote look and feel unquote are undeniably 
> important aspects of 
> web design, but they should neither interfere with, nor be an 
> essential 
> component of comprehending, the content being delivered...   
> and who is to 
> say that the color scheme you applied is actually autumnal?  
> isn't the 
> underlying meaning of the color scheme a product of the brain of the 
> beholder?  what meaning would the colors that, in north america, are 
> considered autumnal, have to a resident of the gobi or 
> kalahari deserts -- 
> that is, if they even paused to reflect upon it as anything 
> other than a 
> possible annoyance?  would it have any meaning at all, or 
> would it be akin 
> to wearing white clothing to a wedding in southeast asia 
> (where, in many 
> cultures, white is the color of mourning), or wearing white 
> clothing to a 
> north american or european funeral (where black is the color 
> of mourning)?
> 
> what is vision, other than the interpretation of a natural 
> phenomenon, a 
> process which is shaped either by acceptance or rejection of 
> one's own 
> cultural influences and biases?  which is why it is impossible to 
> communicate a universalizable message (such as, "hey, i'm happy it's 
> autumn!") stylistically...  it's the thought that counts, 
> right?  and it's 
> the thought (in this case, "hey, i'm happy it's autumn!") 
> that you are 
> attempting to convey through the use of what you perceive as 
> an autumnal 
> color scheme...  but your color scheme is only one 
> manifestation of the 
> content that you are trying to convey, which is "hey, i'm 
> happy (or at 
> least know) it's autumn!"
> 
> so, what is content?  solely the message that the author is 
> attempting to 
> convey, regardless of the markup used to create the conduit 
> for the content 
> or the modality in which the content is received and 
> perceived...  and, 
> unless content can be received by the user in his or her modality of 
> choice, you aren't communicating with others, you're 
> dictating to others...
> 
> as for making people aware of what quote alternate unquote 
> modalities are 
> like, a tool such as len kasday's WAVE <>, speaks silent 
> volumes to page 
> authors who don't own a screen reader or tracking magnifier 
> -- an ingenious 
> eye AND ear opening experience -- try reading the flow of a 
> poorly defined 
> page to another person who isn't looking at your monitor, and 
> you'll see 
> slash hear what an impressive thing len's done...
> 
> kynn, i'm not saying that there isn't a place for the 
> graphical mind set on 
> the web, but it shouldn't be allowed to become the bedrock 
> upon which the 
> web itself is built...  the visual is only one output 
> modality, and by far, 
> probably the most expensive, in terms of display and quality of 
> reproduction, etc., so it's a matter of survival for page 
> authors to begin 
> to think in terms of device independence, interoperability, 
> and usability 
> (of which accessibility is, if not a subset, then a facet) -- if the 
> majority of the world either doesn't speak an author's 
> stylistic language 
> or can't interact with an author's pages in the way the 
> author intended 
> (namely, on a system capable of faithfully reproducing his or 
> her handiwork 
> when encoded in a standards compliant markup language, rendered by a 
> standards compliant user agent) to whom is that author speaking?
> 
> so, rather than stating, as you did, that, quote:
> The problem facing web designers is not "making the textual 
> information 
> accessible", it's "making the page look like what I want it 
> to look like."
> unquote
> 
> if web designers fail to consider interoperability and 
> usability (which, of 
> course, includes accessibility--one's a subset of the other!) 
> when creating 
> content for the web; AND if they don't insist that the tools 
> they use to 
> create content and the tools available to individuals to 
> receive content 
> adhere to standards (including the User Agent and Authoring Tool 
> Accessibility Guidelines); AND if they don't stop to consider 
> why some of 
> us, mantra-like, constantly harp upon the separation of style 
> from content, 
> the problem for a lot of people involved in web design today will 
> ultimately be, "how do i pay my rent?"
> 
> gregory.

Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 15:52:43 UTC