Thread Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 3:30 PM

Gentle souls,

Let me start that in this discussion it isn't relevant to first care if
anything diverges from WCAG in any way shape or form. WCAG conformance
levels, and the related concepts are not clear nor simple to write and
understand. Yes, standards are important and harmonization is important,
but I think we do a disservice to not discuss these issues in this forum
unencumbered by convention. I don't care to follow WCAG if it doesn't
enable Section 508 to ensure accessibility. Talking in WCAG terms also
confuses those who aren't familiar with the semantics and approach W3C
uses. If you believe Section 508 should reference W3C as a standard then
we should be working on ensuring W3C activity meets our needs, not
trying to reinvent the wheel in Section 508! I have only to point to
valid HTML and validation issues as it relates to Section 508 to make it
clear we don't have a technical answer to something that is critical to
accessibility. But I digress. I do not say this to be disrespectful. Let
us please involve the layman reading this, the end-users, and get them
into this discussion if they so desire. I beg of you to not reference
WCAG 2.0 and instead make it plain, including expounding upon the
specific WCAG _concepts_ you reference.

I think the requirement for "readable without REQUIRING AN ASSOCIATED
stylesheet" should be reconsidered, but it really isn't about sequenced
meaning and bad design practice with CSS design. Although ordering and
sequencing is an important issue when failure occurs, I've yet to see
_any_ issues with this for any of our vendors or internal development.
Ever.

The most important functionality gained from this provision is the
ability to apply their own user or the browser's default stylesheets.

Why? Because there are times where the browser has been designed for a
specific screen resolution, for a specific font, for all the purposes of
exacting visual design that fails whenever any styles (fonts, colors,
user agent) change. This provision's most useful impact has been to
insist that content developers and "content stylist" try viewing their
content with the browser's default stylesheet (otherwise known as
disabling stylesheets).

CSS is so very important to how the web is moving forward. I have to say
that because I still have vendors trying to master HTML Strict.
Separating content from design is the best thing for accessibility. It
helps us abstract the user agent, allows for multi-platform operating
systems, multi-language issues, and usage in ways unintended by the
designers, most importantly to me by degrading gracefully. CSS is
important to accessibility. If you want to move things forward I suggest
1194.22(d) be changed into "Documents shall be usable without requiring
an associated stylesheet and allow end-users to apply their own
stylesheets" and be done with it. It is a _functional_ test. Please also
note that the CSS specifications themselves at all revisions speak to
the author not being able to enforce the use of a specific stylesheet.
Thus, if we all simply followed the valid technical specifications for
CSS, this wouldn't be required in Section 508. Since we know the
application designers themselves often only offer one stylesheet
(theirs) and only test with one stylesheet (theirs) this provision is
important. We know testing for users disabling stylesheets or applying a
different stylesheet clearly demonstrates the application passes or
fails. Users are _able_ to modify the content. Without this provision
they aren't assured of this ability, unless the contracting officer
technically validates the content rigorously meets the CSS technical
implementation through validation. Validation is against the standard.
This provision is to ensure users the right to accessibility, by
applying their own stylesheets or using the default stylesheet to
override the design when the designer didn't follow the CSS technical
standards.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Richard
Schwerdtfeger
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:03 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
without stylesheets



>In WCAG this is handled by whether CSS is in the baseline or
not.

CSS is now on over 50% of all web sites. It, like JavaScript has
had steady growth since 2001:


http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200607/techpen.html

The use of it and JavaScript will continue to grow the more
companies move to Web 2.0 technologies from static HTML.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
"Walser, Kate" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >




"Walser, Kate" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

12/19/2006 01:35 PM

Please respond to
TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >



To

"TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets


Jim Thatcher proposed:
(Meaningful sequence) When the sequence in which content is
presented
affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be
programmatically
determined.

Gregg replied:
In WCAG this is handled by whether CSS is in the baseline or
not. The
question then becomes - is CSS so widely supported that it would
ALSWAYS
be in the baseline? If yes - then we can remove it and no
difference.
If not - then removing it would cause divergence from WCAG.

Kate asks and adds:
- Did we ever clearly define baseline? We've been using it
heavily on
the list but I know I still have some questions about what it
means in
general and what it means for our efforts.
- With respect to whether CSS is widely supported - it is, but
not all
are using it. There will always be those behind the curve
(including
older applications agencies must maintain and update), so I
don't know
that we can make the assumption that everything being developed,
procured, maintained, or used by agencies uses CSS.
- What's the best way to track some of the examples / details
that may
no longer be standards but will be helpful in providing some
ideas to
agencies and everyone else about what we meant with the
standard? Some
of the proposed standards will be a bit less clear as we try to
generalize them. If we can capture examples / details now of how
you
might address the standards, it will put us much further ahead
later.

Best regards,
Kate

--
Kate Walser
Director, Usability Center of Excellence
SRA International, Inc.
4300 Fair Lakes Court
Fairfax, VA 22033

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:45 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
without
stylesheets

In WCAG this is handled by whether CSS is in the baseline or
not. The
question then becomes - is CSS so widely supported that it would
ALSWAYS
be
in the baseline? If yes - then we can remove it and no
difference.
If
not - then removing it would cause divergence from WCAG.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Thatcher
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:57 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> Current wording. 1194.22(d) Documents shall be organized so
> they are readable without requiring an associated style sheet.
>
> The discussion on the list on this item 1194.22(d) (Readable
> without style
> sheets) has been succinctly summarized by Andi on the wiki,
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Correct_coding#22.28d
> .29. On the last call (12/13) I took the action item to
> submit a proposal relative to this provision.
>
> Proposal: Delete provision 1194.22(d) (Readable without style
sheets).
>
> The problem is that it is possible with CSS positioning to
> wreak havoc on the source code order of the content and the
> order can be meaningful. Thus following WCAG 2.0 we need a
> provision that guarantees that AT can come up with a
> meaningful reading order. The following proposal takes the
> wording from the current WCAG 2.0 Editors Draft
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/).
>
> Proposal: (Meaningful sequence) When the sequence in which
> content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading
> sequence can be programmatically determined.
>
> This proposal is also added to the Wiki - the agenda for the
> 12/20 meeting
> (http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:December_20#Agenda).
>
> Jim Thatcher
> 512-306-0931
> Accessibility Consulting
> http://jimthatcher.com
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University