W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Proposed New 1.3 based on Yvette's Analysis

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:58:12 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.53.0402231347350.29164@mail.veldt.ca>

This isn't much better. WCAG WG needs to understand what it's trying to
accomplish here, apart from issuing a mishmash of contradictory
requirements. What *are* you trying to accomplish? What Web sites can you
point to that are presently available that would pass or fail the

> text is not presented over a background image or pattern, or if a background
> image or pattern is present the the text is easily readable when the page is
> viewed in black and white. [Issue #605] [Y]

Black-and-white viewing is irrelevant except to achromats (0.03% of the
population). I have explained at length that stylesheet-switching is the
correct method of accommodation here, but it continues to be ignored. If
an approved person said it, would the Working Group take it seriously?

> 1.      the following can be derived programmatically (for example, through
> a markup or data model) from the content without requiring user
> interpretation of presentation.
> a.      hierarchical elements and relationships, such as:,
> *       paragraphs

Paragraphs aren't a hierarchy. They are really the heart of any document.
You don't have paragraphs <p> and subparagraphs <subp> and superparagraphs

> b.      non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as:
> *       cross-references and linkages,

As ever, the Working Group's solution to a problem is to add more
syllables: audio description --> auditory description and link -->

How are cross-references accomplished *except* through the <a> element,
that is, through *links*?

> c.      emphasis or special treatment of specific words, phrases, quotes,
> etc.

What is the exhaustive list of the manifestations of "special treatment"?

> Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3
> 1.      information presented using color is also available without color
> and without having to interpret markup (for example through context or text
> coding). [Issue #317
> <[16]http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=317> ] [Y]

Delete. If you applied this elsewhere, you could say that Level 1 success
for language identification is to embed it in the HTML, while Level 2
success is simply to add the words "This page is written in English" to
any English-language page.

Could propoonents of this apparently-ill-thought-out clause point to five
sites in the real world that use it? Note: Sites at the domain w3.org
aren't eligible.

> Who Benefits from Guideline 1.3 (Informative)
> *       Separating content and structure from presentation allows Web pages

I thought we were being technology-neutral. How about Web applications,
Flash presentations, PDFs?

> *       All of these can benefit people with cognitive, physical, hearing,
> and visual disabilities.

Explain how a deaf person benefits from this. Or a mobility-impaired
person, for that matter.

> *       Example 1: a multi-column document.
> A document is marked up with headings, paragraphs and other structural
> features. It is presented visually in three columns. The markup that creates
> the columns is separate from the markup that specifies the logical structure
> of the document.

Could Working Group members provide a working example of multicolumn

> *       Example 2: a scrolling list of stock prices.
> Current stock quotes are scrolled horizontally across the screen. The data
> are separate from the methods used to scroll the text across the page.

A scrolling list would be a violation of other WCAG provisions.

> *       Example 3: a 3-dimensional site map.
> A custom user interface renders 3D visualizations of the pages on a site and
> how they relate to one another from a data source. Any hierarchical
> relationships, groupings, cross-references, etc. would originate in the data
> source so that alternate interfaces could be rendered (from the same source)
> that expose the structure of the site in an accessible form. (See also
> guideline
> <[18]http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20040214.html#technology-support
> s
> -access#technology-supports-access>  4.3)

At least you didn't use the word "fisheye." Five examples of these from
the real world, please? (In this case it might be redundant to state that
w3.org-hosted sites are excluded.)

> *       Example 4: a list that allows users to sort information on a page
> according to preference.
> A server side script

We're supposed to be deprecating server-side scripts.

You're not getting any better at these. And you're already talking about
moving toward TR. I rather think not.


  Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
  Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
  <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 13:54:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC