Re: CSS Validation warning: You have no background-color with your color;

> Labeling it as "accessibility" wouldn't be quite adequate. If the checker
> warned, say, about too small contrast between background and text color, 
> _that_ would be about accessibility. The risk of _arbitrary_ combination
> of background and text color is about robustness. If the colors are, for 
> example, exactly the same, you don't need to be visually impaired to miss 
> information.

It's still accessibility, IMO.

> Actually the wording _should_ be stronger, as we can deduce from the 
> protests against the warning - regularly reflecting lack of 
> understanding the issue, even after explanations. It's called a warning, 
> and that should suffice, unless you wish to make it _strong_ warning.

Stamp the floor as much as you'ld like, have the warning flash red, full
screen size (ASAIK you would have to use other presentation techniques for
that flash effect - unless the word group is considering yet another bogus
parameter). Maybe it's you that don't understand the issue. 

START PROPOSED TEXT

Okay, so we accidently put the 'transparent' attribute into the css
recommendation, but that was really just to see if you guys fell for it. You
are not supposed to use it, since it MAY render you page useless to this one
guy joe blow, that likes to apply his own half-ass incomplete styles to your
page overruling some few random styles. 

Go tell everybody you meet, that design using transparency is flawed.

We don't care how you solve a design task involving underlying elements with
background pictures, God forbid.

We don't care that you care about the look of your site. The web was never
meant to be good looking. Actually you should validate your design using a
fax machine.

We don't care about the billion others or so that do no apply nasty
incomplete style sheets to your page.

Apply the lowest denominator of all design and stick to it, so that joe blow
may have a hard time screwing up your presentation with whatever evil style
sheet he applies.

END PROPOSED TEXT

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 20:03:19 UTC