Thread Subject: Group D: 22(d) Readable without style sheets

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Nov 29 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Group D: 22(d) Readable without style sheets

Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable without
requiring an associated style sheet.

Issues:

- The term "document" implies that this provision may not apply to web
applications, either way this should be clarified.

Harmonization:

- This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a baseline issue. If
CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with style
sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.

Andi

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

<blockquote>Harmonization:
- This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a baseline issue. If
CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with style
sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.</blockquote>

The biggest thing that worries me here is position of content/elements
visually for low vision users. If I turn off CSS I want visual field labels
to correspond to the correct fields etc.

Jonathan

From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

On 11/29/06, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable without
> requiring an associated style sheet.

I've always struggled with this guideline. I don't think I've ever
seen a web page that is not 'readable' with styles disabled. And is
'styles' just CSS or is it also <font> tags, layout tables, and such?
I think the intention is, as Jonathan notes, that the reading and
navigation order and structure of the content is logical and operable
when styles are disabled. Also, the word 'readable' is quite different
from 'understandable', 'logical', and 'operable'. I can read a site in
German or Elvish, but it won't be very accessible to me.

And to be a bit technical, you never really disable all style sheets,
you just revert to the browser default styles.

> This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a baseline issue. If
> CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with style
> sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.

Perhaps this is a bit off topic...
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if
CSS is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the
page is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user
styles (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is
the case, this could result in big issues for many users that require
user styles or even prefer no styles - the develop simply says that
*this* CSS is required and if it doesn't work for you, too bad.

Jared Smith

From: Slatin, John M
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Jared Smith wrote:
<blockquote>
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if CSS
is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the page
is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
(which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is the
case, this could result in big issues
</blockquote>

If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not available;
conformance may still be claimed. But success criterion 1.3.1 requires
that "information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined, and notification of changes in these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
meant to ensure that information and relationships are available even if
the presentation changes, e.g., through use of an alternative style
sheet or through transposition to a different sensory modality (e.g.,
from text to (synthetic) speech).

Hope that helps.
John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared
Smith
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:37 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets


On 11/29/06, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable
> without requiring an associated style sheet.

I've always struggled with this guideline. I don't think I've ever seen
a web page that is not 'readable' with styles disabled. And is 'styles'
just CSS or is it also <font> tags, layout tables, and such? I think the
intention is, as Jonathan notes, that the reading and navigation order
and structure of the content is logical and operable when styles are
disabled. Also, the word 'readable' is quite different from
'understandable', 'logical', and 'operable'. I can read a site in German
or Elvish, but it won't be very accessible to me.

And to be a bit technical, you never really disable all style sheets,
you just revert to the browser default styles.

> This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a baseline issue.
> If CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with
> style sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.

Perhaps this is a bit off topic...
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if CSS
is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the page
is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
(which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is the
case, this could result in big issues for many users that require user
styles or even prefer no styles - the develop simply says that
*this* CSS is required and if it doesn't work for you, too bad.

Jared Smith

From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Jared Smith wrote:
<blockquote>
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if CSS
is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the page
is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
(which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is the
case, this could result in big issues
</blockquote>

John M. Slatin
<blockquote>
If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not available;
conformance may still be claimed. But success criterion 1.3.1 requires
that "information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined, and notification of changes in these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
meant to ensure that information and relationships are available even if
the presentation changes, e.g., through use of an alternative style
sheet or through transposition to a different sensory modality (e.g.,
from text to (synthetic) speech).

Hope that helps.
John
</blockquote>

All,

I have a serious problem with the inclusion of Baseline in this discussion.
It seems to me that this is a way that accessible design can be excluded by
simply saying "This or that is not in the baseline" I do NOT believe
baseline should have any place in 508. Period. It is quite possible I am
misunderstanding baseline and concept it represents but if I am please point
me to something that will re educate me.

Sincerely,


Mike Burks



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Slatin,
John M
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:52 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets

Jared Smith wrote:
<blockquote>
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if CSS
is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the page
is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
(which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is the
case, this could result in big issues
</blockquote>

If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not available;
conformance may still be claimed. But success criterion 1.3.1 requires
that "information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined, and notification of changes in these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
meant to ensure that information and relationships are available even if
the presentation changes, e.g., through use of an alternative style
sheet or through transposition to a different sensory modality (e.g.,
from text to (synthetic) speech).

Hope that helps.
John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared
Smith
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:37 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets


On 11/29/06, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable
> without requiring an associated style sheet.

I've always struggled with this guideline. I don't think I've ever seen
a web page that is not 'readable' with styles disabled. And is 'styles'
just CSS or is it also <font> tags, layout tables, and such? I think the
intention is, as Jonathan notes, that the reading and navigation order
and structure of the content is logical and operable when styles are
disabled. Also, the word 'readable' is quite different from
'understandable', 'logical', and 'operable'. I can read a site in German
or Elvish, but it won't be very accessible to me.

And to be a bit technical, you never really disable all style sheets,
you just revert to the browser default styles.

> This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a baseline issue.
> If CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with
> style sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.

Perhaps this is a bit off topic...
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if CSS
is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the page
is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
(which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is the
case, this could result in big issues for many users that require user
styles or even prefer no styles - the develop simply says that
*this* CSS is required and if it doesn't work for you, too bad.

Jared Smith

From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

On 12/1/06, Michael R. Burks wrote:

> I do NOT believe baseline should have any place in 508. Period.

I agree. And I don't believe that is the intention here. But analyzing
how WCAG has prioritized its guidelines and structured them can
provide great insight into our workings here. In this case, it appears
at face value, that the W3C working group has stated that CSS can be
identified as a required technology and that as such, content may be
inaccessible if the user does not come to the table with that
technology. While this may not (at least I hope not) be the direction
we want to go, it is certainly enlightening.

Perhaps something along the lines of, "Information and content shall
be structured in a way so that it meets all conditions of this part
(meaning whatever else we come up with) when visual styling is
removed" will do the trick.

Jared Smith

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Before you kill baseline - I think it is important to understand it.

First you should know that the idea has been refined since introduction in
WCAG. The basic underlying concept however allow guidelines to be written
that
1) work as technologies evolve
2) are not impossible to meet today
3) are not ineffective today (i.e. don't provide real accessibility).

If you don't have something like baseline involved - then you have to give
up one or more.

I'm not sure what you think baseline means though. And there is lots of
misunderstanding.

It basically means a realistic appraisal of what AT is out there and what it
can handle at any point in time.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jared Smith
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:53 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> On 12/1/06, Michael R. Burks wrote:
>
> > I do NOT believe baseline should have any place in 508. Period.
>
> I agree. And I don't believe that is the intention here. But
> analyzing how WCAG has prioritized its guidelines and
> structured them can provide great insight into our workings
> here. In this case, it appears at face value, that the W3C
> working group has stated that CSS can be identified as a
> required technology and that as such, content may be
> inaccessible if the user does not come to the table with that
> technology. While this may not (at least I hope not) be the
> direction we want to go, it is certainly enlightening.
>
> Perhaps something along the lines of, "Information and
> content shall be structured in a way so that it meets all
> conditions of this part (meaning whatever else we come up
> with) when visual styling is removed" will do the trick.
>
> Jared Smith
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Actually it is the other way around.

If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS off then you can't
have CSS in the set of technologies you rely on to make the page conform.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Michael R. Burks
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> Jared Smith wrote:
> <blockquote>
> Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?),
> but if a page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned
> off, then CSS MUST be in the baseline because it's a
> required technology, right? So if CSS is in the baseline, is
> there no contingency for ensuring that the page is accessible
> if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
> (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this
> is the case, this could result in big issues </blockquote>
>
> John M. Slatin
> <blockquote>
> If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
> parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not
> available; conformance may still be claimed. But success
> criterion 1.3.1 requires that "information and relationships
> conveyed through presentation can be programmatically
> determined, and notification of changes in these is available
> to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
> meant to ensure that information and relationships are
> available even if the presentation changes, e.g., through use
> of an alternative style sheet or through transposition to a
> different sensory modality (e.g., from text to (synthetic) speech).
>
> Hope that helps.
> John
> </blockquote>
>
> All,
>
> I have a serious problem with the inclusion of Baseline in
> this discussion.
> It seems to me that this is a way that accessible design can
> be excluded by simply saying "This or that is not in the
> baseline" I do NOT believe baseline should have any place in
> 508. Period. It is quite possible I am misunderstanding
> baseline and concept it represents but if I am please point
> me to something that will re educate me.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Mike Burks
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Slatin, John M
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:52 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> Jared Smith wrote:
> <blockquote>
> Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?),
> but if a page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned
> off, then CSS MUST be in the baseline because it's a
> required technology, right? So if CSS is in the baseline, is
> there no contingency for ensuring that the page is accessible
> if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
> (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this
> is the case, this could result in big issues </blockquote>
>
> If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
> parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not
> available; conformance may still be claimed. But success
> criterion 1.3.1 requires that "information and relationships
> conveyed through presentation can be programmatically
> determined, and notification of changes in these is available
> to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
> meant to ensure that information and relationships are
> available even if the presentation changes, e.g., through use
> of an alternative style sheet or through transposition to a
> different sensory modality (e.g., from text to (synthetic) speech).
>
> Hope that helps.
> John
>
> "Good design is accessible design."
>
> Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
> email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jared Smith
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:37 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
>
> On 11/29/06, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable
> > without requiring an associated style sheet.
>
> I've always struggled with this guideline. I don't think I've
> ever seen a web page that is not 'readable' with styles
> disabled. And is 'styles'
> just CSS or is it also <font> tags, layout tables, and such?
> I think the intention is, as Jonathan notes, that the reading
> and navigation order and structure of the content is logical
> and operable when styles are disabled. Also, the word
> 'readable' is quite different from 'understandable',
> 'logical', and 'operable'. I can read a site in German or
> Elvish, but it won't be very accessible to me.
>
> And to be a bit technical, you never really disable all style
> sheets, you just revert to the browser default styles.
>
> > This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a
> baseline issue.
> > If CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with
> > style sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.
>
> Perhaps this is a bit off topic...
> Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?),
> but if a page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned
> off, then CSS MUST be in the baseline because it's a
> required technology, right? So if CSS is in the baseline, is
> there no contingency for ensuring that the page is accessible
> if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
> (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this
> is the case, this could result in big issues for many users
> that require user styles or even prefer no styles - the
> develop simply says that
> *this* CSS is required and if it doesn't work for you, too bad.
>
> Jared Smith
>

From: Slatin, John M
Date: Fri, Dec 01 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Whoops. Sorry for my sloppy writing on that one.

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:30 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets


Actually it is the other way around.

If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS off then you
can't have CSS in the set of technologies you rely on to make the page
conform.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Michael R. Burks
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> Jared Smith wrote:
> <blockquote>
> Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?),
> but if a page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned
> off, then CSS MUST be in the baseline because it's a
> required technology, right? So if CSS is in the baseline, is
> there no contingency for ensuring that the page is accessible
> if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
> (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this
> is the case, this could result in big issues </blockquote>
>
> John M. Slatin
> <blockquote>
> If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
> parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not
> available; conformance may still be claimed. But success
> criterion 1.3.1 requires that "information and relationships
> conveyed through presentation can be programmatically
> determined, and notification of changes in these is available
> to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
> meant to ensure that information and relationships are
> available even if the presentation changes, e.g., through use
> of an alternative style sheet or through transposition to a
> different sensory modality (e.g., from text to (synthetic) speech).
>
> Hope that helps.
> John
> </blockquote>
>
> All,
>
> I have a serious problem with the inclusion of Baseline in
> this discussion.
> It seems to me that this is a way that accessible design can
> be excluded by simply saying "This or that is not in the
> baseline" I do NOT believe baseline should have any place in
> 508. Period. It is quite possible I am misunderstanding
> baseline and concept it represents but if I am please point
> me to something that will re educate me.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Mike Burks
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Slatin, John M
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 2:52 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> Jared Smith wrote:
> <blockquote>
> Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?),
> but if a page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned
> off, then CSS MUST be in the baseline because it's a
> required technology, right? So if CSS is in the baseline, is
> there no contingency for ensuring that the page is accessible
> if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
> (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this
> is the case, this could result in big issues </blockquote>
>
> If CSS is in the baseline, then it can be "relied upon" (in WCAG 2.0
> parlance) and the content need not work if CSS is not
> available; conformance may still be claimed. But success
> criterion 1.3.1 requires that "information and relationships
> conveyed through presentation can be programmatically
> determined, and notification of changes in these is available
> to user agents, including assistive technologies." This is
> meant to ensure that information and relationships are
> available even if the presentation changes, e.g., through use
> of an alternative style sheet or through transposition to a
> different sensory modality (e.g., from text to (synthetic) speech).
>
> Hope that helps.
> John
>
> "Good design is accessible design."
>
> Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
> email = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jared Smith
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:37 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
>
> On 11/29/06, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable
> > without requiring an associated style sheet.
>
> I've always struggled with this guideline. I don't think I've
> ever seen a web page that is not 'readable' with styles
> disabled. And is 'styles'
> just CSS or is it also <font> tags, layout tables, and such?
> I think the intention is, as Jonathan notes, that the reading
> and navigation order and structure of the content is logical
> and operable when styles are disabled. Also, the word
> 'readable' is quite different from 'understandable',
> 'logical', and 'operable'. I can read a site in German or
> Elvish, but it won't be very accessible to me.
>
> And to be a bit technical, you never really disable all style
> sheets, you just revert to the browser default styles.
>
> > This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a
> baseline issue.
> > If CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with
> > style sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.
>
> Perhaps this is a bit off topic...
> Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?),
> but if a page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned
> off, then CSS MUST be in the baseline because it's a
> required technology, right? So if CSS is in the baseline, is
> there no contingency for ensuring that the page is accessible
> if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
> (which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this
> is the case, this could result in big issues for many users
> that require user styles or even prefer no styles - the
> develop simply says that
> *this* CSS is required and if it doesn't work for you, too bad.
>
> Jared Smith
>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Mon, Dec 04 2006 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

<quote Gregg>
If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS off then you can't
have CSS in the set of technologies you rely on to make the page conform.
</quote>

There are too many negatives in that for me to get my head around.

If I reduce this to cases, either:
1 - CSS is required to be used in order to be accessible
2 - CSS required to not be used in order to be accessible
3 - use of CSS does not influence accessiblity.

(case 2 is actually not valid in this example, since the visual rendering model of HTML actually assumes a CSS type layout model and a default stylsheet, but ignoring that for the moment).

Which of these statements puts CSS in the baseline? And is baseline a property of the content or the rendering engine?

As I read your statement it says you can't have CSS in the baseline if (1).
Since (2) seems nonsensical (a technology is in the baseline if you don't use it). This would seem to leave (3). But some technologies (ascii text for example), seem to be so intrinsic that there is no content without them, and thus they necessarily fall into (1).

Perhaps since baseline is causing such confusion, you could provide a clearer definition of what it is, and how it should be applied.

Thanks,

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730

-

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Dec 04 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Hmmm

How to answer this. We are currently refining the concept in WCAG WG. I
don't want to tell you the old and the new is still being finalized. So let
me hang back a week and answer you next week if I may. Then I can give you
a more stable answer.

Sorry for the double negatives. None of the items below is actually right.
So let me give you a more complete answer in a bit.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 8:15 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
> <quote Gregg>
> If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS off
> then you can't have CSS in the set of technologies you rely
> on to make the page conform.
> </quote>
>
> There are too many negatives in that for me to get my head around.
>
> If I reduce this to cases, either:
> 1 - CSS is required to be used in order to be accessible
> 2 - CSS required to not be used in order to be accessible
> 3 - use of CSS does not influence accessiblity.
>
> (case 2 is actually not valid in this example, since the
> visual rendering model of HTML actually assumes a CSS type
> layout model and a default stylsheet, but ignoring that for
> the moment).
>
> Which of these statements puts CSS in the baseline? And is
> baseline a property of the content or the rendering engine?
>
> As I read your statement it says you can't have CSS in the
> baseline if (1).
> Since (2) seems nonsensical (a technology is in the baseline
> if you don't use it). This would seem to leave (3). But some
> technologies (ascii text for example), seem to be so
> intrinsic that there is no content without them, and thus
> they necessarily fall into (1).
>
> Perhaps since baseline is causing such confusion, you could
> provide a clearer definition of what it is, and how it should
> be applied.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
> -
>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

On , Gregg wrote:

"If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS off then you
can't have CSS in the set of technologies you rely on to make the page
conform."

<end of Gregg's comment>

Gregg,

I disagree with you on this one. In our discussions of technologies that
can be in the baseline, we have said that if AT supports it, it can be in
the baseline and you can "rely upon" it to be supported and enabled. There
has been no discussion that if the content is inaccessible to AT when the
technology is turned off, then the technology can't be in the baseline. If
we use this logic, then you can't have anything but flat text. There is a
lot of HTML content that would be inaccessible if you "turned off" HTML.
But no one has suggested that HTML can't be in the baseline.

Andi

From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

<blockquote>

On , Gregg wrote:

"If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS off then you
can't have CSS in the set of technologies you rely on to make the page
conform."

<end of Gregg's comment>

Gregg,

I disagree with you on this one. In our discussions of technologies that
can be in the baseline, we have said that if AT supports it, it can be in
the baseline and you can "rely upon" it to be supported and enabled. There
has been no discussion that if the content is inaccessible to AT when the
technology is turned off, then the technology can't be in the baseline. If
we use this logic, then you can't have anything but flat text. There is a
lot of HTML content that would be inaccessible if you "turned off" HTML.
But no one has suggested that HTML can't be in the baseline.

Andi </blockquote>


Baseline should not be a subject of discussion in Section 508. It is not
appropriate to include it. It can used to insure that the standard will not
make things as accessible as possible to people with disabilities. It has
no place in a Section 508 Standards discussion.

Mike Burks

919 870 8788 - Office

919-882-1884 - Fax

703-254-3881 - Cell

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Dec 06 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

You are correct Andi.
This one is poorly worded.
Actually convoluted.

There is something wrong in what I wrote - but it was late and I can't
remember now what it was supposed to say. But what I actually did write is
not correct. Doesn't actually make sense.

And we need to finish our baseline reworking so we can discuss it instead of
the old model.

Thanks Andi.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Michael R. Burks
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 8:46 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable
> without stylesheets
>
>
>
>
> <blockquote>
>
> On , Gregg wrote:
>
> "If the page would be inaccessible to AT if you turned CSS
> off then you can't have CSS in the set of technologies you
> rely on to make the page conform."
>
> <end of Gregg's comment>
>
> Gregg,
>
> I disagree with you on this one. In our discussions of
> technologies that can be in the baseline, we have said that
> if AT supports it, it can be in the baseline and you can
> "rely upon" it to be supported and enabled. There has been no
> discussion that if the content is inaccessible to AT when the
> technology is turned off, then the technology can't be in the
> baseline. If we use this logic, then you can't have anything
> but flat text. There is a lot of HTML content that would be
> inaccessible if you "turned off" HTML.
> But no one has suggested that HTML can't be in the baseline.
>
> Andi </blockquote>
>
>
> Baseline should not be a subject of discussion in Section
> 508. It is not appropriate to include it. It can used to
> insure that the standard will not make things as accessible
> as possible to people with disabilities. It has no place in
> a Section 508 Standards discussion.
>
> Mike Burks
>
> 919 870 8788 - Office
>
> 919-882-1884 - Fax
>
> 703-254-3881 - Cell
>
>

From: Myers, James
Date: Thu, Dec 07 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

During the discussions of the original standards, 1194.22(d) was
included as "style sheets" were a new and emerging technology, and the
possibility existed that browsers did not support the use of style
sheets. Therefore, the method to test should be to emulate a browser
that doesn't support the style.

>From experience with my early use of style sheets I ran into problems
with style sheets a several times usually with older browsers. Some Web
sites that I've reviewed found that some methods of using CSS, <font> or
style within elements as a design foundation can create a "collapse"
effect when removing the developer designed sheet. The effect would
render a page that could not be read due to the overlapping of text with
page elements. An example of this would be to set a font size very
large, in hopes of creating a layout that is visually readable creating
an absolute size (for the layout) and use combinations of
relative/absolute positioning for the remaining page. I viewed one page
that collapsed all content into the upper left corner of the browser
with a simple insertion of the custom styles (creating a simple style
sheet with very little or no markup to emulate disabled) essentially
disabling, but not accepting the default of the browser. The goal is to
see how the page looks without the "associated style sheet", not how a
particular browser overcomes the unknown by reverting to a safe
"default" browser setting. By creating a relatively blank style sheet
and using it in place of the developer created styles, we get a more
accurate picture of the page without style. In other words, outsmarting
the browser defaults.

Most browsers these days do support style sheets and most use styles in
a way that works, even when style overrides are used. Finding browsers
that don't support styles is rare. In addition, browsers are also
recognizing the absence of basic CSS within any "fake" style sheets used
to override the developers and the browsers are becoming smart, and
default goes to a safe presentation.

This leads me to the "off topic" discussion about the baseline. It may
be the chosen browsers in the baseline technologies, not the CSS
programming practices that might be mentioned. This leaves things
essentially the same as quoted, if you don't have browser X, too bad.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared
Smith
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:37 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets

On 11/29/06, Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Current wording: Documents shall be organized so they are readable
> without requiring an associated style sheet.

I've always struggled with this guideline. I don't think I've ever seen
a web page that is not 'readable' with styles disabled. And is 'styles'
just CSS or is it also <font> tags, layout tables, and such?
I think the intention is, as Jonathan notes, that the reading and
navigation order and structure of the content is logical and operable
when styles are disabled. Also, the word 'readable' is quite different
from 'understandable', 'logical', and 'operable'. I can read a site in
German or Elvish, but it won't be very accessible to me.

And to be a bit technical, you never really disable all style sheets,
you just revert to the browser default styles.

> This is not a requirement in WCAG 2.0 because it is a baseline issue.
> If CSS is in your baseline, then the page doesn't have to work with
> style sheets disabled. If CSS is not in your baseline, then it does.

Perhaps this is a bit off topic...
Maybe I'm interpreting baselines incorrectly (imagine that?), but if a
page uses CSS and is inaccessible with them turned off, then CSS MUST
be in the baseline because it's a required technology, right? So if CSS
is in the baseline, is there no contingency for ensuring that the page
is accessible if those styles are disabled or overridden by user styles
(which is essentially the same as turning them off)? If this is the
case, this could result in big issues for many users that require user
styles or even prefer no styles - the develop simply says that
*this* CSS is required and if it doesn't work for you, too bad.

Jared Smith

From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: 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

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

This proposal would make a lot of sense but I have another issue. IE has a way that ?improves? accessibility of webpages (tools>internet options>accessibility). Effectively this turns off some of the style sheet properties. As a low vision user I have experienced problems with these options. While all data appears when the conventional style sheets are turned off when one uses the accessibility options under IE there is data missing.

Would this be an issue to be addressed at the Section 508 platform level or should it be addressed in the standards for developing web pages. When I have brought this to the attention of the developers they were successful in modifying the code to allow all browsers to display all of the data.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Jim Thatcher" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

> 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
>
>

From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

I have no problem with the concept, only the level of the directive.
Since we are directing the federal agencies about the end result, the
language should be mandatory ("shall be"), instead of the proposed
permissive ("can be").

The permissive "can be" language is about capabilities of an
application. What the standard needs to do is place requirements on the
actually deployed state of the application. That is mandatory "shall
be" language.

Barbara Lybarger

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
Thatcher
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:57 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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: 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
>
>

From: Walser, Kate
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: 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
>
>

From: Jim Allan
Date: Wed, Dec 20 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Tom,
do you have some example pages you could share? I have seen pages where
using IE's feature of turn off style sheets has caused text to overlap and
become unreadable, I have not seen content vanish when using the
accessibility feature.

Jim Allan
Tom Brett wrote:

This proposal would make a lot of sense but I have another issue. IE has a
way that improves accessibility of webpages (tools>internet
options>accessibility). Effectively this turns off some of the style sheet
properties. As a low vision user I have experienced problems with these
options. While all data appears when the conventional style sheets are
turned off when one uses the accessibility options under IE there is data
missing.



Would this be an issue to be addressed at the Section 508 platform level
or should it be addressed in the standards for developing web pages. When I
have brought this to the attention of the developers they were successful in
modifying the code to allow all browsers to display all of the data.

From: Jim Allan
Date: Wed, Dec 20 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Jim,
Is source code order considered "programatically determined?"
Programatically determined implies the use of some algorithm to determine
the "meaningful order". It is my experience, at least as far as screen
readers and keyboard access to web pages, that CSS positioning is ignored
and reading order begins at the top of the source code and proceeds.
Navigation also proceeds from the top of the source for screen readers and
keyboard navigators except when the order has been be modified with the
tab-index attribute.
Source-code-order (SCO) is the base state of the content. I don't think any
algorithm is needed to follow the SCO.
I think SCO should be included in "programatically determined."

Jim Allan

> Jim Thatcher wrote on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:57 AM

> 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

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Wed, Dec 20 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

I have asked the web developers to recreate the page. It should be
completed soon.



Tom Brett,

2026061206

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
Allan
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:08 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets



Tom,

do you have some example pages you could share? I have seen pages where
using IE's feature of turn off style sheets has caused text to overlap
and become unreadable, I have not seen content vanish when using the
accessibility feature.



Jim Allan

Tom Brett wrote:



This proposal would make a lot of sense but I have another
issue. IE has a way that improves accessibility of webpages
(tools>internet options>accessibility). Effectively this turns off some
of the style sheet properties. As a low vision user I have experienced
problems with these options. While all data appears when the
conventional style sheets are turned off when one uses the accessibility
options under IE there is data missing.



Would this be an issue to be addressed at the Section 508
platform level or should it be addressed in the standards for
developing web pages. When I have brought this to the attention of the
developers they were successful in modifying the code to allow all
browsers to display all of the data.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 21 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Hi Kate

We are in the process of refining the concept of baseline. As soon as it is
done we will post it out here.


BASICALLY what we are talking about is a set of Accessibility-enabled Web
Technologies. That is, "an established set of web technologies that enable
direct accessibility or are known to work with AT".

So if we have an established list of those web technologies that are
supported generally by AT - then we can talk about using technologies from
that list to create pages according to guidelines and have some confidence
that users, using their AT will be able to use the content or the product.

So CSS would be in the established list if people with disabilities can
access the content with CSS turned ON.

That help?

More when we get done with it.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Walser, Kate
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:36 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> 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
> >
> >

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sun, Dec 24 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

I need examples and assurance that the reading order can be
programatically determined. I believve adobe have tried this and not
done well.

On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Jim Thatcher wrote:

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

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Dec 27 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

I need examples and assurance that the reading order can be
programatically determined. I believe adobe have tried this and not
done well.

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe that Adobe has done this with PDF
and with Flash -- if you experience issues with the reading order for a
document or application in either of these formats it is _because_ the
reading order can be programmatically determined that you are able to
make that determination. You may not like the reading order that is
provided, but this is an issue with the document or application, not the
format.

This is the exact point that this standard is attempting to address, I
believe.

AWK

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Dec 27 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Sorry, I understood that if the reading order where programatically
determinable that I'd see it reflected possitively in apps which take
that approach.

On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:


I need examples and assurance that the reading order can be
programatically determined. I believe adobe have tried this and not
done well.

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe that Adobe has done this with PDF
and with Flash -- if you experience issues with the reading order for a
document or application in either of these formats it is _because_ the
reading order can be programmatically determined that you are able to
make that determination. You may not like the reading order that is
provided, but this is an issue with the document or application, not the
format.

This is the exact point that this standard is attempting to address, I
believe.

AWK

From: Loretta Guarino Reid
Date: Wed, Dec 27 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

To use PDF as an example, the reading order of a PDF file is
programatically determined if it is a Tagged PDF file; if the PDF is
not tagged, then heuristics must be used to decide on a reading order.

However, just having a programatically determined reading order is not
sufficient, since it is possible to tag a PDF file in a way that
doesn't reflect its contents logically or to use layout tables to
create HTML files where the source order does not read logically.

The proposal requires both that the reading order be programatically
determined, and that the reading order "make sense".

Loretta

On 12/27/06, David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Sorry, I understood that if the reading order where programatically
> determinable that I'd see it reflected possitively in apps which take
> that approach.
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>
> I need examples and assurance that the reading order can be
> programatically determined. I believe adobe have tried this and not
> done well.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. I believe that Adobe has done this with PDF
> and with Flash -- if you experience issues with the reading order for a
> document or application in either of these formats it is _because_ the
> reading order can be programmatically determined that you are able to
> make that determination. You may not like the reading order that is
> provided, but this is an issue with the document or application, not the
> format.
>
> This is the exact point that this standard is attempting to address, I
> believe.
>
> AWK
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Dec 27 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Thanks Loretta.

On Dec 27, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:

To use PDF as an example, the reading order of a PDF file is
programatically determined if it is a Tagged PDF file; if the PDF is
not tagged, then heuristics must be used to decide on a reading order.

However, just having a programatically determined reading order is not
sufficient, since it is possible to tag a PDF file in a way that
doesn't reflect its contents logically or to use layout tables to
create HTML files where the source order does not read logically.

The proposal requires both that the reading order be programatically
determined, and that the reading order "make sense".

Loretta

On 12/27/06, David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Sorry, I understood that if the reading order where programatically
> determinable that I'd see it reflected possitively in apps which take
> that approach.
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>
> I need examples and assurance that the reading order can be
> programatically determined. I believe adobe have tried this and not
> done well.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. I believe that Adobe has done this
> with PDF
> and with Flash -- if you experience issues with the reading order
> for a
> document or application in either of these formats it is _because_ the
> reading order can be programmatically determined that you are able to
> make that determination. You may not like the reading order that is
> provided, but this is an issue with the document or application,
> not the
> format.
>
> This is the exact point that this standard is attempting to address, I
> believe.
>
> AWK
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jan 01 2007 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

> Sorry, I understood that if the reading order where programatically
determinable that I'd see it reflected possitively in apps which take
that approach.

As Loretta indicated, there is another aspect related to the order being
useful. With that aspect comes a decrease in the level of testability
that should be noted.

As far as whether programmatically determined means that you'll notice a
good reading order with AT, you will, but that is dependant both on the
user agent that exposes the order and the developer/author/authoring
tool that creates the order that is exposed.

AWK

From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Tue, Jan 02 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

Could this be fixed by adding language something like "and reflective of
the reasonable order in which the author intends the content to be
accessed"?

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 9:30 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(d) Readable without
stylesheets

> Sorry, I understood that if the reading order where programatically
determinable that I'd see it reflected possitively in apps which take
that approach.

As Loretta indicated, there is another aspect related to the order being
useful. With that aspect comes a decrease in the level of testability
that should be noted.

As far as whether programmatically determined means that you'll notice a
good reading order with AT, you will, but that is dependant both on the
user agent that exposes the order and the developer/author/authoring
tool that creates the order that is exposed.

AWK

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: 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"
<Kate_Walser@sra.
com> To
Sent by: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc

Subject
12/19/2006 01:35 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group D:
PM 22(d) Readable without stylesheets


Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>






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
>
>

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Group D: 22(d) Readable without stylesheets

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
>
>