- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:31:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I don't see the need to modify the existing style sheets. The CSS cascade mechanism is carefully defined so that it is possible to build a simple WYSIWYG-type interface to modify a particyular page's presentation, which the Usser agnet generates as a user style sheet. The User agent could also remember whether that is a general atyle sheet or one that is to ba associated with that partiular page/site/whatever (not a requirement, but good for bonus points). This is just a smart way to implemenet (technique for) the various checkpoints that require user control over various style features. Charles McCN On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote: At 03:41 PM 2001-01-22 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote: > >4.Issue 448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? [This is > checkpoint 5.9 in the 13 January 2001 draft.] > > Source: ><http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448>http:// server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#448 > Refer to proposal from IJ: > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0099.html>http:// lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0099.html > > AG: I'm uncomfortable with the Note (may follow up). > > IJ: I think that user modification of author style sheets doesn't > respect the intended cascade mechanisms. > > EH: I think I agree with Ian's argument. > > JG: Often, real browsers let you modify the computed value. > > Resolved: No change to the DOM 2 style requirement. > AG:: For the user to create a derived-work stylesheet and view the author's content through this stylesheet, is, I would think, a "just use" within the general architectural division of labor that says "content" is essential to the communication of the correct information, and "style" is adjustable without changing the information. For the user to re-distribute the derived composite (author's content and user's edit of author's stylesheet) on any terms other than a duly permitted and credited derived work would be an infringement of the author's intellectual property rights. But for the User Agent to allow the user to take the author's stylesheet at any time and use it as the initial value for creating a user's stylesheet on the fly (while viewing the content) has such strong access advantages that the UAAG should not discourage it. Many User Agents that are not authoring tools will not provide this capability. But it is a) inappropriate and b) counter to our values for the User Agent Guidelines to say anything against it. The limits on such activity are intellectual property policy over which the CSS Recommendation does not have jurisdiction, and where we would be making a mistake to act as though it does. Direct manipulation of the style properties of objects in an open Web document, is markedly superior in usability to offline creation of a stylesheet in a formal style language. The idea that the user can write and install their own style sheet is enough to gain a WCAG A rating, but should not be considered to get us past that point. It basically leaves a P2 level barrier in place. The users who can actually do this would amount to a small fraction of those who could cope with the direct manipulation version. For the User Agent to offer direct manipulation to fix access problems by giving the user edit control of the style layer of the in-DOM document image, starting from the baseline laid down by the author, is just a much better interface to what we have all agreed the user should be able to do. Nothing that is trying to advance access should discourage the implementation of this better interface. Clearly the user should not be able to upload their derived stylesheet in a way that replaces thte author's stylesheet at the server and in distribution of the author's work. Normally, the derived stylesheet created when the user edits the author's stylesheet would be saved as a new stylesheet. But this need not be addressed by any provisions of the UAAG. Making, for your own use, a derived copy of the author's web page with an edited stylesheet is the intellectual property rough equivalent of having a copy of a published and printed book with handwritten marginal notes and yellow highlights in it. Were the User Agent to offer style editing while browsing as a means to do this, it would be better, not inappropriate, User Agent functionality. Let us not put the W3C in the indefensible and access-hostile position of discouraging such better practice. Al -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 01:31:33 UTC