Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

> > *However*, if that presentation is inherent in the markup itself,
> > it is vey hard to override. I'm not saying
> > it's impossible, but it is often close to impossible.
>
> But it is possible. The goal then is to make is easier to do?

It might be possible. There is such a variety of sites now that I'm sure it
isn't 100% possible. You are fully correct in that the goal is to make it
easier to do, and we must also make it widely available, and consider how
alternatives may be used.

> > By using semantic markup, the USER can define what they
> > want a particular meaning to be
> > displayed as.
>
> What are background and font called in semantic markup?

Background and font rarely have a semantic meaning, but when they do there
are better alternatives:-
<font size="+1"> would be better as <big> and then use a style sheet to say
how much bigger big is. +1 doesn't really mean much, but 1.1em means 1.1
times larger, typographically speaking. Long story short, using the font tag
means that people are forced to some extent to put up with what the browser
decides is +1 bigger, whereas using semantic markup, it is up to the user,
whos opinions and requirements of "big" vary from person to person. e.g.
Aural browser users could increase the volume, but a font change to them
would be otherwise inapparent!
As for background, there aren't many occasions when a background image is
vital to a page, is there? Even if it is, by hard wiring it into the page,
you are making it very difficult for people with disabilities who can't use
that background to replace it with one of their own.

> How do they vary from the HTML commands in whatever HTML
> markup is called?

Sorry, I don't get that: could you explain for me?

> Is CSS the only way to achieve this? the best way? or one of several ways?

It is the only useful way that I can see. It is fairly widely supported, by
the two most widely used browsers, and it has a stable W3C defined
specification (e.g a list of rules to follow to improve continuity). I can't
really think of any other way of styling a page separate from its content.
CSS was stronger than all other proposals of the time. [1]

> What happens for a user who never heard of or doesn't use
> a style sheet?

Style sheets are applied automatically by UAs.

> What if it's a user with an old browser? or using the web on a tv?

Backwards compatability *is* an issue, but it's not too hard to make pages
that degrade gracefully. In other words, you can still make pages that look
good without CSS, but that enable users to apply CSS if they want. You just
have to be careful.

I know what you're going to say: what about users with cognitive
disabilities who need presentation to assist them? That is a *very* good
point, but if you look into CSS you will find that it may *help* people like
this much more than it hinders. Because CSS is up to the user, if you had a
section that had a class of (say) "highlight", people with differing level
of physical and cognitive abilities could apply different forms of styling
to that content. If you just put in a <font size="+1" color="red"> tag, then
you've taken away all hope for the alternative highlighting methods that
some people may require. That *doesn't* stop people who need visual
presentation assistance from using (for example):

     @media screen { .highlight { font-weight: bold;
     font-size: 2em; color: red; background-color: #ffffff; } }

Also, you can't really blame it on the browser *too* much: if a Web user
needs as much pictorial information as possible to assist them, they aren't
going to want to use Lynx, for example. Whereas if people don't like looking
at images, they will love using Lynx. In summary, although no solution is
perfect, we must strive to find the best compromise for everyone!

[1] I found an interesting page
(http://www.w3.org/Style/951106_Workshop/report1.html - Report on the W3C
style sheet workshop, Paris '95) that I feel is quite illuminating. It is
one of the first ever "style" conferences. Note that at this point, the Web
was young, and CSS1 didn't exist. You would have thought 5 years would have
made it out of date. See
http://www.w3.org/Style/951106_Workshop/report1.html#hughes for a good
summary of my previous comments. It seems this arguement is as old or older
than the Web itself!

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 Wednesday, 22 November 2000 18:34:11 UTC