W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:05:53 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200506061405.j56E5rFU020022@asterix.andreasen.se>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On  6 Jun, Orion Adrian wrote:

> Well frankly the W3C has been doing a lousy job of late. It took 6

  I agree - it pains me to look at WCAG 2 and XHTML 2.

> versions of HTML to get even close to an accessible spec. CSS still is
> unusable for most of the web and requires such an act of contortion to
> get anywhere near a desireable result.

  ... where?

  It's taken us 15 - *fifteen* - years of work getting to a point where
  the idea that "usable" means "getting the exact same look in all

  If not, I am happy to tell you that CSS works exceptionally well in
  real life situations *today* - *if* the person using it accepts two
  vital facts: graceful degradation is a must, not an option, and not
  all designs belong on the web[*]

  We have oodles of work left to us - in particular with the downwards
  spiral into meaningless complexity we seem to be on these days - but
  CSS isn't a field where the W3C deserve our scorn.[**]

  Me, and many with me, doubt accessibility - despite it's slightly
  skewed direction at the moment - would have seen much daylight had WAI
  not been involved.

  Not all designs belong on paper, either. The design must be adapted to
  the medium; adapating the medium to the design as so many has struggled
  to do ever since 1990 is a futile effort.

  Yes, it could be better. It could be MUCH better. So could browser

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 14:05:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:25 UTC