- From: Jonathan O'Donnell <jonathan.odonnell@ngv.vic.gov.au>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:15:04 +1000
- To: WAI <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Hello Joe, Charles and others ** Examples ** Here are some examples of documents that differ when rendered without a style sheet (or with a browser's default style sheet). I hope that this helps to clarify the discussion. Alis Technologies, Inc. http://www.alis.com/en/index.html Drop down lists don't correspond anymore. eg "Languages" is no longer associated with the languages choices. Autonomy, Incorporated http://www.autonomy.com/ A large amount of additional text information appears in the non-CSS version. This actually seems to be a good thing, in this case. Avaya Communications http://www.avaya.com/ Drop down lists don't correspond at third level. Eg "Avaya Global Services" is no longer related to the list of Avanya Global Services. BEA Systems, Inc. http://www.beasys.com/framework.jsp?CNT=homepage_main.jsp&FP=/content Drop down list: all list items are repeated, and are turned into text. BitFlash Graphics, Inc. http://www.bitflash.com/ Additional text at the end of the page. Looks like a menu list. Bowstreet http://www.bowstreet.com/ Additional text at the end of the page. Looks like a menu list. ** Methodology ** Examples are drawn from the A's and B's of the W3C member's list. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List I displayed each example in Safari (with style sheet enabled) and in Internet Explorer (with style sheet turned off). I noted where there was a semantic difference between the two. At the same time as sending this e-mail, I sent a note to the Web master of each example to let them know about this debate. They may gain from the discussion (and it seemed like the polite thing to do). -- Jonathan O'Donnell 04 2575 5829 http://purl.nla.gov.au/net/jod/ mailto:jonathan.odonnell@ngv.vic.gov.au On 23/06/2003 2:19 AM, Joe Clark at joeclark@joeclark.org wrote: > > To combine two messages here: > >>> Some standards-compliant methods of displaying images purely using >>> CSS would be disallowed by a surface reading of the paragraph >>> quoted above. >> >> Yes. There are ways that comply with the specifications of CSS and >> HTML of including content that I would argue should not be used, for >> accessibility reasons. > > Examples found in real-world sites, please? (Examples *plural*.) > >> Disagree that this is relevant to whether the HTML is valid or not. >> Disagree that this is a hypothetical problem (although it surprises >> me that it isn't). > > Nobody has been able to provide real-world counterexamples. ... Rest deleted for brevity.
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 19:06:09 UTC