W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Proposal for 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:52:55 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0504282046490.19896@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> **GV:   Good points.   Does this give a blank check though to technologies
> that could but don't bother to allow this

Like what? SVG?

I think the objection is not significant.

> This means use (X)HTML, basically. It could also mean tagged PDF. I
> have a technique in mind for plain-text documents that we could talk
> about later.
> ** GV:  If there is to be a limitation - it must be reflected in SCs or JPEG
> will be covered.

No, that represents a misunderstanding of the data formats in use on the 

> So now that you're using (X)HTML or tagged PDF, you have to use the
> correct element for whatever you're encoding (*within reason*; there
> will always be exceptional cases where authors must approximate).
> This handily takes care of the obsession with emphasis found in
> previous versions.
>> ** GV:  To the extent possible needs to be made objective.

No, it does not. The semantics of HTML coding are expressed, sometimes 
quite imperfectly, in HTML specs. Competent authors agree most of the 
time. The rest of the time, it is up to the author to approximate.

This is not a machine-testable outcome and never can be. If you want to 
use the 80%-inter-rating rule, fine.

> ** GV: this looks like part of the 4.2 discussion.  What if there is no
> accessibility features available.  Can I use the technology and just not
> have it accessible?

Which exact technologies are you talking about?

> 	Level 2 success criterion
> 	Only markup languages and technologies that enable
> 	separation of structure, presentation, and behaviour are
> 	used.

> ** GV:   Ah here it is.   Hmmmm. I don't think we should do this.  but we
> should require alternate presentation if it is not possible with the
> technology talked about.

I don't understand the objection.

> Plain text though is a question. Is it structure we are trying to preserve
> or is it information we are trying to not lose?  That is the discussion
> point.

It's a discussion point for people who don't accept that we're already 
making Web *content* accessibility guidelines, admittedly, yes.

If you run a Web site with nice valid code and somebody hands you a 25K 
plain-text file you want to post, you shouldn't have to spend an hour of 
your life you'll never get back turning that into HTML. You should just be 
able to post it.

If your photo-gallery page has alt texts on the thumbnails that, when 
clicked, show you nothing but the larger image with no surrounding HTML, 
you should not have to custom-write some kind of content-management system 
to enclose those larger images in an alt text you will already have had a 
chance to read.


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2005 20:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:39 UTC