- From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:32:48 +0100
- To: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> From: Bailey, Bruce [SMTP:Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov] > > I remain very perplexed as to the resistance Len's observation on this > checkpoint is facing. I fail to see how you can argue that CSS is not "an > appropriate markup language" when style sheets are explicitly mentioned in > [DJW:] I tend to agree with you, and wish the author of the guidelines would clarify them. I think that Kynn is taking it as an axiom that priority 2 compliance should be possible without compromising the "artistic" control of the design, which I question. He is also assuming that commercial designers would be forced to compromise their "artistic" control if they were not allowed text as graphics (and maybe some other loose interpretations of priority 2 items), which I think is a correct reflection of the commercial web design market place (which is often copied by people dealing in accessible information, as they assume that is the only way of doing things). This logic, combined with subjective wording in the guidelines, leads to the conclusion that text as graphics must be permitted at priority 2, as, otherwise, the initial axiom would be violated. By "artistic" I'm not referring to the wordsmithing of novelists but to graphic, layout, background music, etc., design designed to have an emotional impact on the consumer, sometimes to distract them from the lack of real content, and create a distinctive house style for the company. Examples of conflicts would be reqirements to have a colour gradient across individual characters or to use a font that could not legally be embedded (but which might tbe company's corporate house style font).
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 13:33:11 UTC