- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:05:53 +0200 (CEST)
- 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 situations"? 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 support. -- - 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