E-mail List Archives

Thread: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com

for

Number of posts in this thread: 21 (In chronological order)

From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 5:36AM
Subject: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
No previous message | Next message →

A cause web site asking for more contrast between text and background in
designs. Shame the markup is not that accessible.

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 11:09AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Chris Heilmann wrote:

> A cause web site asking for more contrast between text and background
> in designs. Shame the markup is not that accessible.

You mean the site http://contrastrebellion.com/

Generally, a message should be understandable even to people who do not see
its Subject line. Even more so for URLs, as e-mail clients usually don't
turn URLs in Subject lines to clickable links.

The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either. Too much content
on main page. And it sets a bad example by using ALL UPPERCASE TEXT for many
of its slogans. All uppercase is less readable than normal sentence casing -
and easily gives the impression of shouting.

And the site does not say what "low contrast" means. It surely means
different things to a perfectly healthy good-eyesíght 20-year old nerd than
a 60-year old person with two pairs of eyeglasses, neither of which works
ideally for reading on screen, not to mention people with _serious_ eyesight
problems. There _are_ quantitative guidelines on contrast, and I would
expect to see them at least mentioned on a site that discusses the topic.

Yucca

From: YOUNGV5@nationwide.com
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 11:27AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either.

- Could you show us a site you or someone else has done that is exemplary?

Too much content on main page.

- I'm counting 26 words in total as compared to google.com that currently
has 34 world. Are you saying 26 words on a main page is too many?

And it sets a bad example by using ALL UPPERCASE TEXT for many
of its slogans. All uppercase is less readable than normal sentence casing
-
and easily gives the impression of shouting.

- I think shouting is the impression he is trying to give for the three
slogans, CONTENT ≠ ILLUSTRATION, MAKING TEXT READABLE, and JOIN THE
REBELLION.

And the site does not say what "low contrast" means. It surely means
different things to a perfectly healthy good-eyesíght 20-year old nerd
than
a 60-year old person with two pairs of eyeglasses, neither of which works
ideally for reading on screen, not to mention people with _serious_
eyesight
problems. There _are_ quantitative guidelines on contrast, and I would
expect to see them at least mentioned on a site that discusses the topic.

- It is a simple site, made on this person's busy schedule, and it is for
designers. Most designers have a basic understanding of contrast.

Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
"Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To:
"WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date:
07/27/2011 01:07 PM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Chris Heilmann wrote:

> A cause web site asking for more contrast between text and background
> in designs. Shame the markup is not that accessible.

You mean the site http://contrastrebellion.com/

Generally, a message should be understandable even to people who do not
see
its Subject line. Even more so for URLs, as e-mail clients usually don't
turn URLs in Subject lines to clickable links.

The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either. Too much
content
on main page. And it sets a bad example by using ALL UPPERCASE TEXT for
many
of its slogans. All uppercase is less readable than normal sentence casing
-
and easily gives the impression of shouting.

And the site does not say what "low contrast" means. It surely means
different things to a perfectly healthy good-eyesíght 20-year old nerd
than
a 60-year old person with two pairs of eyeglasses, neither of which works
ideally for reading on screen, not to mention people with _serious_
eyesight
problems. There _are_ quantitative guidelines on contrast, and I would
expect to see them at least mentioned on a site that discusses the topic.

Yucca

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 11:45AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

> The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either.

Please quote properly, instead of presenting someone else's words as you
own.

> - I'm counting 26 words in total as compared to google.com that
> currently has 34 world. Are you saying 26 words on a main page is
> too many?

I don't know how you counted the words at http://contrastrebellion.com but
it surely looks like having more words,. and visually it requires too much
scrolling. On the mini-laptop I'm currently using, I only see the word
CONTRAST on first sight. That's bad. The message is lost. The page may have
loads of content images with alt="", so I probabluy should rest my case.

> - I think shouting is the impression he is trying to give for the
> three slogans, CONTENT ≠ ILLUSTRATION, MAKING TEXT READABLE, and JOIN
> THE REBELLION.

All uppercase is still stupid and decreases readability. All uppercase was
perhaps relevant in the 1960s when typing texts without any formatting
tools.

> - It is a simple site, made on this person's busy schedule, and it is
> for designers. Most designers have a basic understanding of contrast.

Do you know the author personally? Anyway, it is not impressive. It seems to
argue that most designers do _not_ have a basic understanding of contrast,
which might well be true, but you are saying the opposite. So is it trying
to evangelize the true believers, or what?

Yucca

From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 11:51AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

On 27/07/2011 18:43, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
>
>> The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either.
> Please quote properly, instead of presenting someone else's words as you
> own.
>
I wondered why there are not many fruitful discussions on this list
lately. I know now why that is.

From: YOUNGV5@nationwide.com
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 11:57AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

K. Maybe take a load off? Possibly get a drink and watch a good movie?
Yes, the site obviously has problems, but it's a good start to get people
thinking about contrast. Fine.

Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
"Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To:
"WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date:
07/27/2011 01:44 PM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

> The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either.

Please quote properly, instead of presenting someone else's words as you
own.

> - I'm counting 26 words in total as compared to google.com that
> currently has 34 world. Are you saying 26 words on a main page is
> too many?

I don't know how you counted the words at http://contrastrebellion.com but

it surely looks like having more words,. and visually it requires too much

scrolling. On the mini-laptop I'm currently using, I only see the word
CONTRAST on first sight. That's bad. The message is lost. The page may
have
loads of content images with alt="", so I probabluy should rest my case.

> - I think shouting is the impression he is trying to give for the
> three slogans, CONTENT ≠ ILLUSTRATION, MAKING TEXT READABLE, and JOIN
> THE REBELLION.

All uppercase is still stupid and decreases readability. All uppercase was

perhaps relevant in the 1960s when typing texts without any formatting
tools.

> - It is a simple site, made on this person's busy schedule, and it is
> for designers. Most designers have a basic understanding of contrast.

Do you know the author personally? Anyway, it is not impressive. It seems
to
argue that most designers do _not_ have a basic understanding of contrast,

which might well be true, but you are saying the opposite. So is it trying

to evangelize the true believers, or what?

Yucca

From: Elle
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 12:12PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

I'd just like to point out that www.contrastrebellion.com, and a discussion
about color contrast in general, has fueled much larger discussions at my
organization with leadership about the bigger picture of web accessibility.
I never anticipated that it would provide a much needed invitation to the
table with design agencies about the overall importance of conveying meaning
to the user.

While I agree that it isn't the only thing one should use in making the
point, I humbly suggest that it's a good conversation starter for those who
are visually centric without a clear understanding of accessibility. It's
worked quite well for us as we identify our new brand colors that are now
required to be accessible. I'm grateful. :)


Thanks,
Elle
@Nethermind



On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> K. Maybe take a load off? Possibly get a drink and watch a good movie?
> Yes, the site obviously has problems, but it's a good start to get people
> thinking about contrast. Fine.
>
> Vincent Young
> User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
> Nationwide Corporate Marketing
> Nationwide®
> o | 614·677·5094
> c | 614·607·3400
> e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>
>
> From:
> "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To:
> "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date:
> 07/27/2011 01:44 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [WebAIM] Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
> Sent by:
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
>
> > The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either.
>
> Please quote properly, instead of presenting someone else's words as you
> own.
>
> > - I'm counting 26 words in total as compared to google.com that
> > currently has 34 world. Are you saying 26 words on a main page is
> > too many?
>
> I don't know how you counted the words at http://contrastrebellion.com but
>
> it surely looks like having more words,. and visually it requires too much
>
> scrolling. On the mini-laptop I'm currently using, I only see the word
> CONTRAST on first sight. That's bad. The message is lost. The page may
> have
> loads of content images with alt="", so I probabluy should rest my case.
>
> > - I think shouting is the impression he is trying to give for the
> > three slogans, CONTENT ≠ ILLUSTRATION, MAKING TEXT READABLE, and JOIN
> > THE REBELLION.
>
> All uppercase is still stupid and decreases readability. All uppercase was
>
> perhaps relevant in the 1960s when typing texts without any formatting
> tools.
>
> > - It is a simple site, made on this person's busy schedule, and it is
> > for designers. Most designers have a basic understanding of contrast.
>
> Do you know the author personally? Anyway, it is not impressive. It seems
> to
> argue that most designers do _not_ have a basic understanding of contrast,
>
> which might well be true, but you are saying the opposite. So is it trying
>
> to evangelize the true believers, or what?
>
> Yucca
>
>

From: John Foliot
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 12:30PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Elle wrote:
>
> I'd just like to point out that www.contrastrebellion.com, and a
> discussion
> about color contrast in general, has fueled much larger discussions at
> my
> organization with leadership about the bigger picture of web
> accessibility.

And *THAT* my friends is the bigger win. Allowing perfect to be the enemy of
the good often hurts more than it helps. The amount of discussion that
Contrast Rebellion has generated far outweighs the minor problems that have
surfaced on smaller devices (etc.). while I can't "congratulate" the
developers for those problems/mistakes, I can and do congratulate them for
sparking a wider discussion that needs to be had.


= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
>
> > K. Maybe take a load off? Possibly get a drink and watch a good
> movie?

I second that. I'm not clear why Jukka has gone all Rambo on this - it's not
perfect but neither is he. Relax Jukka - look at the glass as half full, not
half empty.

JF

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 5:33PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

God. Some things never change indeed...

I don't care how imperfect this website is or how much better the markup could've been. Design-wise it's impressive, visually stunning and beautifully presented, which is what designers will care about. It also drives the point home about contrast without being overly technical and ultimately, it serves the purpose of accessibility for a community who usually doesn't know a thing about it. That's all I need or care about personally. Pragmatism FTW.

If we weren't so anal-retentive about so many things, maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have so much trouble getting some of our points across people who think we're nothing but a bunch of dogmatic religious freaks.

Now, excuse me while I go P.O.U.R. myself another glass of soda. I'll just go back in my corner, sip it quietly and enjoy a bowl of pop corn while I watch the rest of this show.

/Denis


On 2011-07-27, at 1:48 PM, Chris Heilmann wrote:

> On 27/07/2011 18:43, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
>>
>>> The site is not bad, but not particularly exemplary either.
>> Please quote properly, instead of presenting someone else's words as you
>> own.
>>
> I wondered why there are not many fruitful discussions on this list
> lately. I know now why that is.
>
>
>

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Jul 27 2011 6:21PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Just a few thoughts before the rest of this show gets any uglier.
Primarily, let's keep things civil.

Several good thoughts have been shared. I also thought the site
presents a much-needed and important message to exactly the audience
that needs to hear it. I could have found about 500 better examples of
poor and good contrast, but that's OK. Contrastrebellion.com will do
and is doing much to educate and advocate better accessibility. It's
promoting conversations that weren't occurring yesterday. The site
references WCAG 2.0, which is sufficient. Nearly anyone can eye-ball
within a very close margin whether a particular color combination is
WCAG conformant or not. If it looks like it needs more contrast, it
does.

At the same time, there were other aspects of accessibility on the
site that could have been improved. Of course the few that would
notice them are the same ones that don't need to be schooled about
good contrast. In the end, the site is serving its purpose. Perhaps
the author might consider some enhancements to accessibility (assuming
someone points them out to him/her rather than blathering on here
about them).

Jared

From: Léonie Watson
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 12:12AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Jared Smith wrote:
"Several good thoughts have been shared. I also thought the site presents a
much-needed and important message to exactly the audience that needs to hear
it. I could have found about 500 better examples of poor and good contrast,
but that's OK. Contrastrebellion.com will do and is doing much to educate
and advocate better accessibility. It's promoting conversations that weren't
occurring yesterday."

On that note, does anyone have any thoughts on the use of low
contrast colour schemes for people with reading/learning difficulties and/or
visual stress conditions? WCAG has always (rightly) promoted high contrast,
but increasingly I wonder if there's a gap at the other end of the spectrum
as well.

I've come across plenty of anecdotal evidence, but I'm not aware of
any more "rigorous" information. Is it out there?


Léonie.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: 28 July 2011 01:23
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com

Just a few thoughts before the rest of this show gets any uglier.
Primarily, let's keep things civil.

Several good thoughts have been shared. I also thought the site presents a
much-needed and important message to exactly the audience that needs to hear
it. I could have found about 500 better examples of poor and good contrast,
but that's OK. Contrastrebellion.com will do and is doing much to educate
and advocate better accessibility. It's promoting conversations that weren't
occurring yesterday. The site references WCAG 2.0, which is sufficient.
Nearly anyone can eye-ball within a very close margin whether a particular
color combination is WCAG conformant or not. If it looks like it needs more
contrast, it does.

At the same time, there were other aspects of accessibility on the site that
could have been improved. Of course the few that would notice them are the
same ones that don't need to be schooled about good contrast. In the end,
the site is serving its purpose. Perhaps the author might consider some
enhancements to accessibility (assuming someone points them out to him/her
rather than blathering on here about them).

Jared

From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 12:36AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Léonie Watson wrote:
>
> On that note, does anyone have any thoughts on the use of low
> contrast colour schemes for people with reading/learning difficulties
> and/or
> visual stress conditions? WCAG has always (rightly) promoted high
> contrast,
> but increasingly I wonder if there's a gap at the other end of the
> spectrum
> as well.
>
> I've come across plenty of anecdotal evidence, but I'm not aware
> of
> any more "rigorous" information. Is it out there?

I long ago saw an actual study result that showed that slightly lower
contrast actually helped with some dyslexic users. The lower contrast
reduced the instances of dancing letters as the overall effect was
apparently more "calming". Not sure where that study is today, but Google
might. (I also experimented with that on an earlier site - Paragraphs that
had focus (tabbing or mouse-over) changed the background from pure white
to a very light beige background. I had some comments but nothing
conclusive - most folks thought it was cool and made sense, but that's all
anecdotal too. No hard data available)

It seems now that this might be in doubt:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837835

I also know of a an extreme low vision user who prefers reverse colors
(light on dark) as it reduces glare - in those instances a slightly lower
contrast also makes for a more readable page overall for those users. No
actual documentation there that I know of however Leonie, but lower
contrast in her setup certainly was better for me.

I also just found this: CONCLUSION: Low contrast was more detrimental for
older adults
(http://www.mendeley.com/research/reading-in-the-dark-effects-of-age-and-c
ontrast-on-reading-speed-and-comprehension/), which ultimately confirms to
me that no 2 users are the same <smile>, and that offering at least 2
choices would be a wonderful best practices, especially for very high
volume sites.

JF

From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 8:42AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:36 AM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I long ago saw an actual study result that showed that slightly lower
> contrast actually helped with some dyslexic users.

This introduces some interesting questions. High contrast is the
default for... well, everything. Chances are that 99% of you are
reading this text in high contrast black on white. Should there be a
burden on developers to deviate from something that is the norm to
account for this relatively rare situation?

I'm not arguing that these users should be ignored because they might
be few in number, but I am suggesting that the burden here should
probably be on the end user, who can relatively easily decrease
contrast. On my Mac, I can tap the contrast button down a couple
times. Increasing or reversing contrast, on the other hand, is a bit
more difficult.

Jared

From: Jim Allan
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 10:24AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:36 AM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> I long ago saw an actual study result that showed that slightly lower
>> contrast actually helped with some dyslexic users.

> I'm not arguing that these users should be ignored because they might
> be few in number, but I am suggesting that the burden here should
> probably be on the end user, who can relatively easily decrease
> contrast. On my Mac, I can tap the contrast button down a couple
> times. Increasing or reversing contrast, on the other hand, is a bit
> more difficult.

I agree, Jared. The user must have some responsibility. Changes they
make to their browser or OS or display setting effect every webpage.
Though the same could be said for font sizes (browsers and OS have
this capability), yet the widget for changing font sizes has
proliferated. It is a slippery slope. Where do we require that user
know how to use their tools? Changing fontsize is ok, but changing
contrast is burdensome. Though I have seen widgets to change the
foreground/background color on a limited basis.

--
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 12:12PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Jared Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:36 AM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > I long ago saw an actual study result that showed that slightly lower
> > contrast actually helped with some dyslexic users.
>
> This introduces some interesting questions. High contrast is the
> default for... well, everything. Chances are that 99% of you are
> reading this text in high contrast black on white. Should there be a
> burden on developers to deviate from something that is the norm to
> account for this relatively rare situation?

I think it reinforces the idea that allowing user-supplied style-sheets is
a significant a11y consideration - in other words authors should avoid
inline styles whenever possible in favor of linked styles so that some
users who desire alternative display contrasts (etc.) can do so with
stability/predictability. I believe Wayne Dick (CSU system) has written on
this issue in the past, but I was unable to actually put my hands on
anything quickly.

>
> I'm not arguing that these users should be ignored because they might
> be few in number, but I am suggesting that the burden here should
> probably be on the end user, who can relatively easily decrease
> contrast. On my Mac, I can tap the contrast button down a couple
> times. Increasing or reversing contrast, on the other hand, is a bit
> more difficult.

Agreed, for the most part this will/should remain an end-user
configuration issue. My reverse contrast friend has set her system up so
that the reverse contrast is system wide. However as content authors we
should still be conscious of the fact that finer control can be applied
via user style-sheets, so again avoiding in-line styles has benefits
beyond "ease of editing" considerations.

JF

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 12:33PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

28.07.2011 21:12, John Foliot wrote:

> I think it reinforces the idea that allowing user-supplied style-sheets is
> a significant a11y consideration

Technically, authors have no word on that. Browsers that support user
stylesheets (as browsers generally do) do that irrespectively of
anything that authors do. But I guess you mean that authors should
design with user stylesheets in mind. For example, you should not, as an
author, set just the content color of an element and not set the
background. If you do, your page may fail to work when using a
reasonable user style sheet, since the background color from it might be
close to the content color specified in the page stylesheet.

> in other words authors should avoid
> inline styles whenever possible in favor of linked styles

I don't quite see how that matters. Inline styles have their problems,
but how would it make a difference to set, say, some properties for a
single paragraph using <p style="..."> versus using <p id="foo"> and
setting the styles for #foo in a style element or in an external stylesheet?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 12:57PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> Technically, authors have no word on that. Browsers that support user
> stylesheets (as browsers generally do) do that irrespectively of
> anything that authors do. But I guess you mean that authors should
> design with user stylesheets in mind. For example, you should not, as
> an
> author, set just the content color of an element and not set the
> background. If you do, your page may fail to work when using a
> reasonable user style sheet, since the background color from it might
> be
> close to the content color specified in the page stylesheet.

Yes, exactly

>
> > in other words authors should avoid
> > inline styles whenever possible in favor of linked styles
>
> I don't quite see how that matters. Inline styles have their problems,
> but how would it make a difference to set, say, some properties for a
> single paragraph using <p style="..."> versus using <p id="foo"> and
> setting the styles for #foo in a style element or in an external
> stylesheet?

Discoverability mostly (coupled with ease of authoring/ease of use).

While most user style-sheets will be highly generic, there could exist
cases where a more defined style-sheet that was site specific (think
intranet for example) could be developed for specific users. Having all
those style declarations inside one document (rather than having to hunt
out and address inline styles) benefits the end user, as well as perhaps
any helping author (who might be working with the end user to develop the
custom CSS).

JF

From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 1:45PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

John Foliot wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> >
> > I don't quite see how that matters. Inline styles have their
> problems,
> > but how would it make a difference to set, say, some properties for a
> > single paragraph using <p style="..."> versus using <p id="foo"> and
> > setting the styles for #foo in a style element or in an external
> > stylesheet?
>
> Discoverability mostly (coupled with ease of authoring/ease of use).
>
> While most user style-sheets will be highly generic, there could exist
> cases where a more defined style-sheet that was site specific (think
> intranet for example) could be developed for specific users. Having all
> those style declarations inside one document (rather than having to
> hunt
> out and address inline styles) benefits the end user, as well as
> perhaps
> any helping author (who might be working with the end user to develop
> the
> custom CSS).

Also, the Cascade effect come into play here: inline declarations always
over-rule embedded and linked styles, and embedded styles always over-rule
linked styles. Therefore user stylesheets could not over-rule inline
styles unless you applied the !important declaration as well, which might
introduce other unwanted artifacts... (and often inline styles might not
have a selector [ID or class] available to "hang" your alternate style to)

JF

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 2:24PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

28.07.2011 22:46, John Foliot wrote:

>> While most user style-sheets will be highly generic, there could exist
>> cases where a more defined style-sheet that was site specific (think
>> intranet for example) could be developed for specific users. Having all
>> those style declarations inside one document (rather than having to
>> hunt out and address inline styles) benefits the end user

That's a rather rare case, and not particularly significant even in
those rare cases. It's generally the overall complexity of style sheets
that makes it difficult to design a user style sheet that works with a
page (author) style sheet. People can write highly confusing and complex
style sheets in style elements or external stylesheets. Compared to
that, inline styles are mild-mannered animals.

> Also, the Cascade effect come into play here: inline declarations always
> over-rule embedded and linked styles,

Only when other things are equal, and in this discussion they aren't.

> Therefore user stylesheets could not over-rule inline
> styles unless you applied the !important declaration as well,

User stylesheets cannot overrule _any_ page (author) stylesheets without
!important. Inline declarations have high specificity, but that doesn't
matter when considering user vs. page stylesheets. Page stylesheet
always wins, unless there's !important. Specificity doesn't affect this.
Ref.:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: YOUNGV5@nationwide.com
Date: Thu, Jul 28 2011 5:06PM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | Next message →

What I am having trouble with is understanding the present day
accessibility reason(s) for recommending style sheets over in-line styles;
such as the following recommendation from the W3C:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/G140

In-line styles have not seemed to have adverse effects in the assistive
technology I use such as ZoomText or Internet Explorer's native user style
sheet switcher. It would be nice to have some documented cases on where
in-line styles have been an issue for assistive technology. Needless to
say, I am a big fan of using style sheets. I like to steer clear of any
potential accessibility problems, which in-styles could present today and
in the future.

@YUCCA - I'd like a little more explanation from you on the following
comment:

Inline styles have their problems, but how would it make a difference to
set, say, some properties for a single paragraph using <p style="...">
versus using <p id="foo"> and setting the styles for #foo in a style
element or in an external stylesheet?

Did you mean what difference would it make from an accessibility
perspective?

If not, the difference to me would be the following:

1. Code maintainability becomes much easier when all styles are in
external style sheets.

2. Adding dynamic JavaScript behavior (especially when using a library
such as jQuery) typically makes life easier when using classes/ids placed
in external style sheets.

3. When adding/overriding existing styles, doing so is easier when all
styles are in external style sheets.

4. External style sheets keep your HTML squeaky clean.

5. External style sheets allow for reusable styles for often faster
download speeds.

6. No potential accessibility issues.


Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
"Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Date:
07/28/2011 04:23 PM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



28.07.2011 22:46, John Foliot wrote:

>> While most user style-sheets will be highly generic, there could exist
>> cases where a more defined style-sheet that was site specific (think
>> intranet for example) could be developed for specific users. Having all
>> those style declarations inside one document (rather than having to
>> hunt out and address inline styles) benefits the end user

That's a rather rare case, and not particularly significant even in
those rare cases. It's generally the overall complexity of style sheets
that makes it difficult to design a user style sheet that works with a
page (author) style sheet. People can write highly confusing and complex
style sheets in style elements or external stylesheets. Compared to
that, inline styles are mild-mannered animals.

> Also, the Cascade effect come into play here: inline declarations always
> over-rule embedded and linked styles,

Only when other things are equal, and in this discussion they aren't.

> Therefore user stylesheets could not over-rule inline
> styles unless you applied the !important declaration as well,

User stylesheets cannot overrule _any_ page (author) stylesheets without
!important. Inline declarations have high specificity, but that doesn't
matter when considering user vs. page stylesheets. Page stylesheet
always wins, unless there's !important. Specificity doesn't affect this.
Ref.:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Jul 29 2011 1:00AM
Subject: Re: Interesting cause: http://contrastrebellion.com
← Previous message | No next message

29.07.2011 02:06, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

> @YUCCA - I'd like a little more explanation from you on the following
> comment:
>
> Inline styles have their problems, but how would it make a difference to
> set, say, some properties for a single paragraph using <p style="...">
> versus using <p id="foo"> and setting the styles for #foo in a style
> element or in an external stylesheet?
>
> Did you mean what difference would it make from an accessibility
> perspective?

Exactly. The differences from other perspectives have at most a
potential indirect influence on accessibility. If code is easier to
maintain, authors may have more time to devote to accessibility
considerations. But an author who wants to style an individual element a
bit, for some special reason, may well find it easier and more
maintainable to just slap in a style='...' attribute, instead of
inventing a class or id attribute and finding a place in a style sheet
to enter a CSS rule.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/