W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Not making links... Markup to Formal Grammar... One Size Fits All

From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:11:12 +1000
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "WAI IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Message-ID: <NBBBJPNFCLNLAADCLFJBGEIDDLAA.gdeering@acslink.net.au>

Please correct this view if/where/ whatever it is wrong, but my
understanding is that if the developer is developing documents/pages
according to current formal grammars, this will best address the concerns of
all users, so when the content is marked up in a correct and formal
structured grammar (DTD), then this is the best form for everyone.

It seems to me that such documents contain far more informative about the
document, and can be expressed to the users, than plain text, which contains
no markup at all, and is therefore barren (or almost) of the structure of
the document.

So a correctly marked up page serves all forms of user best (blind or full
faculties, whatever), and the CSS supports the media.  I know we aren't
quite there yet, but even without CSS, a plain correctly marked up HTML
document contains more information about the document, and is more readable
than in plain text or any other form.

Isn't the central message here that correctly marked up documents addresses
the issue as "One size fits all"?


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2002 9:13 PM
To: WAI IG; Jonathan Chetwynd
Subject: Not making links...

Provision of a text version and a visually interesting version of something
are two important parts of accessibility. Neither is sufficient to ensure
full accessibility on its own, and even when they are both present there is
more that is required.

There are various things that need to be done - as Jonathan says,
accessibility isn't something that will be completely solved if we only
of one page at a time.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are important, because they provide
the basis for at least making each individual page accessible. (well,
I'll return to that below.)

But having accessible pages is no good if the browser is unusable. The User
Agent Accessibility Guidelines describe how to make sure that isn't the

And even if all the authors and browsers makers work hard to get everything
right (and the evidence is that they are working on it but many have not yet
got there), it needs to be possible to make accessible pages in the first

The XML Accessibility Guidelines (an internal working draft was published
yesterday at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML and comments are welcome) describe
what needs to be done to make sure that the format people use is accessible.

Actual conformance to these three specifications (full conformance, not
just picking the easy parts) might really provide accessibility. We don't
know yet - although there is enough triple-A WCAG conformant content to test
there isn't a triple-A UAAG conformant browser to test it on, and XAG is
still a working draft in development. But it seems that if we haven't got
whole thing right, at least things are improving. From what I find on the
there are more forward steps than backward steps.

One of the biggest backward steps I can imagine would be not providing
content just because we don't know how to make it completely accessible. The
only thing worse that I can imagine is deliberately not doing something that
we know (well, we believe strongly at any rate) would make content more

(more about WCAG and individual pages...

Actually WCAG 1.0 already worked for more than just individual pages - there
are several checkpoints dealing with sites, when to use client-side or
servcer-side techniques, and presenting information that might be available
in a variety of forms. This has been followed up in the development of WCAG
2, with the help of people who had applied WCAG 1.0 in this way, and I hope
that when WCAG 2 is ready it will be even clearer about this than WCAG 1...)



Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:

Our students and staff expect users to be able to click once and get
multimedia content. when every site has its own browser sniffers, knows
nothing of bandwidth or plugins and this information has to be re-evaluated
on each occassion, our users are seriously disadvantaged. It is plain that
ordinary users find this an unneccessary trial, and one that needs

Are we not to provide a link to charlie chaplin's the general, just because
there is no text equivalent? In my view if the host maintains that this is
best viewed in a certain size window, they may well be right. if it needs
broadband, we may as well assume that is available too...

provision of a text equivalent, no more meets 'accessibility standards' than
does the provision of multi-media, and we are a long way from that.

Of more general concern, it is possible to imagine a triple A conformance
portal, it is the sites that it links to that present a problem, and that is
not neccessarily, one of their own choosing. It is certainly time that more
of our efforts were put into defining the accessibility of something greater
than individual web pages.

Our students genuinely need a 'fun' experience to motivate them, they wont
get this from a wap phone, or a lynx browser, and yet we still do try our
best to follow w3c/wai guidelines.

jonathan chetwynd
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 05:10:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:11 UTC