- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:02:01 -0500 (EST)
- To: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
- cc: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
This seems like a more considered and easier to digest message on the topic. The discussion as I understand it is about a couple of different things. There is a technical issue - what is the place of the font element? As I see it, the use of the font element to enhance backwards compatibility does not conflict with the use of CSS. The use of font to alone, to provide formatting effects, is like the use of a style attribute containing CSS, or style sheets that rely on id attributes to assign styles - it makes it very difficult for the reader to provide therir own styles in a meaningful manner. If it is done instead of identifying the semantics available in HTML, this is a double loss. Should we be supporting netscape 3? Intersting question, and one that was raised by Graham Oliver. If a few people have some log data we could find out whether it is really used much. If we can also find out whether that is because people cannot upgrade for some reason, then we will be approaching an answer. The further question is whether that is related to accessibility, or is because their systems administratoror purchasing officer prohibits it (in the latter case, I hope they realise that Netscape 3 was not a free product, and paid for it...). Glossing over the fact that there arre a couple of other very small browsers that work the same, let us imagine these scenarios: Nobody uses it ever. (I know this is not true - a friend of mine does, but not from any requirement since he has a numberof other browsers he also uses from time to time - much as I use Lynx). In this case, we could just ignore it. And the font element too. There are people with reading disabilities, who, because of their disability are unable to upgrade, and for whom it is effectively impossible to read unformatted text. Then we need to keep supporting it, and providing presentation by the use of font elements in conjunction with CSS is still necessary There are people with disabilities who cannot upgrade and find it difficult to understand default-formatted content Same goes, but at P2 instead of P1 level (this is an abstract discussion - particular checkpoints of WCAG aside for the moment) There are people without disabilities, who use it and don't want to upgrade There is no accessibility requirement to use or not use font. There still is a requirement to use a technology that allows for meaningful control of presentation (CSS element/semantic class based styling, for example). It is up to designers whether they want to provide the same experience for this population or not. Which brings me back to another part of the argument. Should designers expect total control over the presentation of their page? My 2 bits worth says "No, that is simply not possible, like expecting someone to make a night last for 48 hours. It is reasonable for a designer, within the constraints of the medium, to provide a presentation that enhances the comprehension and clarity of their content." (I think that people were vehemently arguing this point against each other, but from the same side in fact). my 2 cents on teh topic that this has become... Charles McCN On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Marti wrote: First, Thanks to Charles for clarifying my comments on graphics, and my apologies for a poorly chosen example that would in anyway imply I was in favor of text-only sites. I think there are actually three sides to this argument. IMHO, both the primary sides have a number of good valid points. Example: 1. <font>, and its like, if allowed are likely to be misused. (decreasing accessibility) 2. If disallowed, <font>, and its like, will be used anyway as that level of the guidelines will be ignored. (decreasing accessibility) Under the occasionally hot rhetoric some good points have been made on both sides and it is my hope that some common ground can be found that will help us move to a web where <font>, and its like, are curiosities of the past. Marti -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 06:02:06 UTC