RE: rationalize presentation [was: Use consistent presentation]

Actually I don't think thisapproach is really contrary to the spirit of
double-A conformance, although it might be contrary to the letter of
checkpoint 3.2. It is contrary to a design approach which I would consider
"truth and beauty and purity in design", but the web is built on partial
solutions, and I am prepared to accept that an approach that doesn't break
anything, and does meet its requirements, is good enough. (There are too many
important features of the Web that many approaches do break - the requirement
that URIs not change around, the ability to cache things that don't change,
the ability to poiont in to pieces of content, ... - for me to be terribly
concerned about what amounts to a question of aesthetics in presentation).

chaals

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Geoff Deering wrote:

  In some sense, neither do I, but this creates an interesting point, using a
  deprecated means of displaying information, meaning deprecated in the light
  of WCAG2 and WCAG1 P2.  But the designer has wanted to use text as images,
  but has put in an extra effort to provide a more accessible alternative as
  well.  Even though they have incorporated checkpoints in P2, the page as a
  whole still breaks the spirit of P2.  I still don't see this as a AA page,
  but there needs to be some way of accommodating and recognising the
  designers effort.  Many designers use this type of approach, and it needs to
  be encouraged, but they are still failing to see how this does not meet with
  the spirit of WCAG2 and WCAG1 P2 (3.4).


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Charles McCathieNevile
  Sent: Tuesday, 22 January 2002 4:30 AM

  Just for the record I don't disagree with anything Kynn said...

  chaals

  On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

    At 3:17 PM -0500 1/20/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
    >Having pictures of the text and the real text should meet the requirement
    >(having pictures and alt text does not) but technically fails the
  checkpoint,
    >and in my very personal opinion is ugly enough to be worth avoiding...

    Right, which is why it's a broken checkpoint.

    One thing we have to be careful of is that there are several types
    of "guidelines" which we may accidentally conflate together:

    * Those based on pure access to information
    * Those based on usability concerns
    * Those based on "style"

  etc


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 05:18:20 UTC