- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 18:45:31 -0700
- To: "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
- Cc: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 08:30 AM 7/1/1999 , Bruce Bailey wrote:
>And a not entirely theoretical question..
>Can a site claim AA conformance without using CSS?
Another question is "if you use tables at all for layout"
(such as http://www.hwg.org/ or http://www.kynn.com/) "can
you ever get a Double-AA rating?"
3.6 says to use CSS for layout.
5.3 says to use tables for layout only when they make sense
when linearized.
Both are priority 2. Proper use of tables according to 5.3
means you aren't following 3.6, right?
I continue to have worries that the vague wording of 3.6 and
the requirement that CSS _must_ be used for formatting and
layout (instead of alternatives that web authors are familiar
with, such as tables) means that for nearly any commercial
site out there, at best a Single-A rating is possible if they
feel there is a commercial disadvantage to using CSS.
Why's this matter? Why not just say "okay, so they'll be
Single-A"? Because the granularity of the compliance rating
system means that if you don't get one, you don't have an
incentive to try for the others. In other words, if you simply
_can't_ comply with this one priority 2 checkpoint ("use CSS
for layout"), then why bother complying with the others?
You will still be only a "Single-A" compliance site no matter
what else you do...
--
Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Sunday, 4 July 1999 21:49:40 UTC