Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

At 11:33 PM 11/22/00 -0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>> But it is possible. The goal then is to make is easier to do?

Let's start with possible. How do you do it now? When you encounter a page
that has a personally impossible background but contains information you
are interested in. What *exactly* do you do to make that page usable to you?


>> 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:-

To me, Background and font are semantic. I am returning to your discussion
of <b> vs <strong>. What are the semantic commands for these two features?  

>> 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?

I'm trying to understand what is "semantic" about commands in style sheets
for commands that aren't "semantic" in HTML. 

>> 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. 

But it isn't supported well by those who would use it to make the web
pages. There is a problem. We may need to look further to find a useful way
that works on both sides of the delivery system.

>> 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.

Then CSS isn't the only solution. Whatever the "just have to be careful"
is, is another solution.

>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.

But if it hinders any/some, it isn't the best solution. 

>In summary, although no solution is
>perfect, we must strive to find the best compromise for everyone!

Agreed. That's why I'm concerned about a solution that from the git-go can
create a hinderence for some users. 

>[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. 

Quotes from the page in question: by David Siegel, who presents himself as
a designer: 
>David Siegel - What do Web-site designers really want?
>David described himself as a `radical designer', i.e., one >that doesn't
care about style sheets but about results. He >would use whatever means
where available to achieve the >desired appearance.
a later quote by the same person:
>The Web has three tasks, which partly overlap: >information, exchange, and
entertainment. The latter is >David's area of interest. 
And another:
>Eventually, David estimates, information will be only a >small part of the
Web, exchange is three times as large, >and entertainment will be three
times larger again.

Since 95, online commerce has come into it's own. For David's estimate of
three areas needs to be expanded to four. Other than that, I generally
agree with much of what David says. 

My point, David, is that two people can read the same arguments and still
come out with different "takes" on the information presented. We are still
looking for solutions that don't leave some folks facing an empty plate. 

I truly feel that the User Options to set background and font style and
size are of little interest to most users of the web. I don't see them
becoming a major attraction. This may be just my own opinion.

				Anne


Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 09:08:47 UTC