Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

> Actually, if you consider "<b>" and "<strong>" to be equivalent,
> as many user agents do (including some assistive technology devices)
> then there really is no problem.  I think the idea that "<b> is evil,
> <strong> is the only way" is far too dogmatic to be practical in the
> real world.

Only if you consider <b> to stand for bold as in "bolder language", but in
the case of HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0, this isn't correct:-

     Rendering of font style elements depends on the user
     agent. The following is an informative description only.
     [...]
     B: Renders as bold text style.
     [...]
   - http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/graphics.html#edef-B

While that's a bit ambiguous, it clearly refers to font style rather than
language or content styling. The words bold and strong aren't true synonyms
either, but I do see your point.

> Any intelligent user agent which understands CSS can render any of these
> obsolete elements as easily as it can render CSS.  And, in fact, many
> user agents which don't understand CSS (or don't FULLY understand CSS)
> can render these just fine.

I'm not saying that the problem lies in the fact that current User Agents
grok them fine, I'm saying that:
1) Accessibility is not at its optimum due to these being presentational
elements rather than semantic
2) Future User Agents (for the SW) won't have a clue what they *mean* (even
hard with RDF Schema).

> There is nothing inherently more or less accessible in, for example,
> using <basefont> instead of <style> body { font-family } </style>.
> Except, of course, that <basefont> enjoys slightly more support in the
> real world at present.

Of course there is!

     Guideline 2. Separate content and structure from
     presentation and explicitly define significant structural
     or semantic distinctions in markup or in a data model.
   - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

That guideline should be etched in stone on buildings throught the world!
That really is the core of what I am working to here. My ideas are all based
on what is in the WCAG guidlines, I'm not making new stuff up here just for
the pure fun of it - it's already there! I just want to see it being more
explainable and implementable...

> I worry that a dogmatic insistence on specific tags -- which -can- be
> understood by web browsers -- may cloud the issues which are more
> complex than simply "don't use those tags, they're bad and CSS is the
> one true way."

I think that's what's confusing the issue here. It really doesn't matter how
UAs handle markup, it really depends on getting meaning into HTML documents,
and then styling it according to structure and semantics. My "dogmatic
insistence on certain tags" is a well founded Web accessibility and Semantic
Web opinion, drawn from experience with using Semantic applications.
Presentational tags should *not* be used in markup - it's a very bad idea.
To an extent it is a violation of the original principles of SGML, and it is
not good accessibility practise: witness the quote above.

> Sometimes the intent simply is "to provide a visual cue for sighted
> users."  As Anne pointed out, this has a lot of benefits for users
> who can see.  It's weird to suggest that this needs to be removed.

There is no such thing as a viual clue for sighted readers only, if it's
there, then it should be made available to everyone! That is one of the core
tenets of the WAI. You must not discriminate against anyone, no matter what
their abilities or software.
Seriously, that's what this point is all about.

> What harm, exactly, would be done to the accessibility of the page to
> those users who are blind?  Are you really preventing a barrier to
> access by this approach?  Is it worth the potential of introducing a
> barrier to access/readability by a graphically oriented user of
> Netscape 3.0?

I have given examples already, but for the good of the discussion, I shall
use this one. Please follow it very carefully:-

Imagine the following:-

     [...] played with the ball of string all night long.</p>
     <img src="pebbles.jpg" alt="Row of pebbles" />
     <p>In other news, there was[...]

Without styling, in an aural browser that would be played as "[...] played
with the ball of string all night long. Row of pebbles In other news, there
was [...]". Clearly using ----------------------------- is no good either.
Instead, you should do this:-
Example [1]

    <p class="p1">[...] played with the ball of string all night long.</p>
    <p>In other news, there was[...]

CSS2 style sheet:

     @media screen {
          p.p1:after { content: "\A<img src=\"pebbles.jpg\"
               alt=\"------------------------------\" />\A"; }
     /* I could have used "content: url(pebbles.jpg);", but that wouldn't
          give the text alternative for Lynx etc. */
     }
     @media aural {
          p.p1 { pause-after: 2s; }
     }

Which provides an accurate visual and aural clue; and because it is a style,
it is separate from the document and can be re-used. Of course, what I
haven't been able to find is the Semantic meaning of the line, and that is
the greatest shame of all, but then the original text didn't specify one.
Why do you want a row of pebbles there? I would have thought the gap between
paragraphs would have been alright, but this is just an example.
As well as the above, if you want NS3 to display it, you could use <hr
style="display:none;" /> *and* use my accessible equivalents, but that is a
bit of a hack. The moral of the story is that it *is* possible to provide
structural/semantic/presentational equivalents to many users, and because it
is possible, it should be done!

In summary:-

1. Presentational markup is bad, even wrong
2. Keeping style separate from content promotes accessibility
3. Style should be based on the structure and semantics of a document

These aren't my "demands", because they are already in the guidelines!!! All
I want to see is that they are explained clearly and thouroghly, and that
they can be implemented correctly (which is why I joined the ERT WG).

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Saturday, 18 November 2000 07:33:15 UTC