- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:16:53 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
I have argued that the cascade does not help accesibility because it requires the reader to know in advance what classes or GIs the target document will use. If they know those in advance they can just write a stylesheet (perhaps based on an existing stylesheet). Cascading cannot automatically make it easy for a colourblind person to see documents that depend on the colours that he or she cannot see. He or she must either a) apply a meta-stylesheet or ask the UA to do so (the most reasonable solution, in my opinion) or b) interactively override the known stylesheet when it becomes known. This is a pain in the butt, but may be necessary in some cases. The danger in CSS is that the myth of author/reader balance will cause authors to stop thinking about accessiblity in the design of their stylesheets and in the deployment of CLASS sets and DTDs. Those with a fuzzy understanding of cascading will argue: "I don't have to do anything special, the cascade puts the reader in charge." The truth is that authors can make readers' lives hellish. Just as in the bad old days of <FONT ...>, authors must take responsibility. Readers should only have to take control as a last resort. There is no author/reader balance: the authors have complete control over the initial display of the document (barring meta-stylesheets) and the reader has complete control over its final display (through overrides). It is the author's responsibility to make the road from one to the other short through parameterization, relative fonts etc. Paul Prescod
Received on Thursday, 24 April 1997 10:10:58 UTC