- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:46:43 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
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