Structure

 From http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#structure

"For instance, many content developers consider that a horizontal line 
communicates a structural division. This may be true for sighted users, but 
to unsighted users or users without graphical browsers, a horizontal line 
may have next to no meaning."

There's an attitudinal bias here that we should try to remove, i.e. if a 
developer "considers" <hr /> to be a "structural division" ("true for 
sighted users") then the chances are very good that there's a reason for 
that and the gratuitous statement that "to unsighted users....may have next 
to no meaning" clearly ignores the difference between "meaning" and "use". 
For skimming something it may have an important use in leveling the playing 
field insofar as access speed is concerned. In fact it has the same use for 
a blind user as it does for a blindless one *IF ITS STRUCTURAL ROLE IS 
ACKNOWLEDGED* - particularly in our guidelines.

This probably turns out to be true for a bunch of supposedly "gratuitous 
graphics" or "purely decorative" elements.

We haven't addressed this well and perhaps we might consider "earcons" as 
an aid in this. Also we must address the same prejudicial notion that has 
permitted "retinal conceit creep" to enter the CSS world through the 
ability to put text in background images and to have the class attribute 
become a pseudo-element.

It's hard for those of us who have become retinally dependent to recognize 
this as it occurs but the necessity to vigorously separate 
content/structure/presentation is still with us.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2000 09:06:16 UTC