- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:29:45 -0400
- To: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Why are we debating this? It seems black and white to me, >> but the popular >> response has been to suggest changing the guidelines rather >> than facing up >> to and acknowledging the problem. > > The guideline as written says that if there is a suitable replacement, > then use it; if not, then use the images. There is not a suitable > replacement at the moment (I know you refuse to believe this, but > it's true), so if you want it to be "black and white" then > the guideline > as written needs to be changed. It is perfectly ridiculous to argue that the phrase <Q>When an appropriate markup language exists</Q> could be used to exclude CSS when "style sheets" is explicitly referenced twice in the following two sentences! CSS has attributes that were specifically included for the formatting of textual-links-as-buttons. Granted, the support for style sheets by Navigator (and earlier versions of IE) is severely lacking. This does not mean that we should give up advocating that pages be coded properly, especially for sites interested in AA compliance! We should also continue working on Microsoft and Netscape to release standards compliant browsers. Kynn, please also explain what you meant by: > PS: Have you ever noticed that there is absolutely no difference > between priority 2 and priority 1 requirements? I believe the premise of the "Kynn Challenge" (that a site can be P1 compliant without significant impact on its superficial graphical presentation). Would you argue that this is (or should be) true of AA conformance?
Received on Monday, 23 October 2000 16:30:30 UTC