W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: CSS vs personalization

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:46:43 +0000
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <c5d58141-73ad-3218-1274-e002e6b69d8f@david-woolley.me.uk>
On 17/12/17 10:54, Tobias Bengfort wrote:
> - Historically, default styling was bad (and it still is).

I would say the real issue for people commissioning web sites sites is 
that the styling was fixed and predictable, which is good for 
accessibility, but the marketing incentive is to be different, ideally 
from every other site, but what often happens, is that they are only 
different from last year, with many designers actually coming up with 
the same difference.  Where disabling styling doesn't break the site 
completely, I generally find it produces an easier to read result.

> - Branding

> - To extend the semantics of HTML (in many cases in combination with
> JavaScript)

That's a fundamental breach of the reasons why CSS was developed, which 
was to separate the meaning from the styling.  Unfortunately, in the 
Accessibility world, real meaning is now conveyed by ARIA, not HTML, so 
is only available to specialist browsers and add ons.

Another reason for styling, which could be argued an extension of the 
extension of semantics above, is that messages communicated by styling 
are not subject to the same rules about truthfulness in advertising as 
the written words, so you can put across messages about the product's 
ability to make you happy or wealthy, that would not be allowed in the text.
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2017 11:47:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 17 December 2017 11:47:59 UTC