[Irl-dean] WCAG+Samurai table summary attribute

[Joshue O Connor]

Hi Andrew,

> The sentiment of pushing the boundaries of accessibility whilst the W3C
> appears to drag its heels does appear a noble one.  The problem arises from
> this being a fragmentation away from a core standard that has been
> thoroughly thought out and discussed by the web community at large.

Putting together the new draft of the guidelines has been a gargantuan 
task while in truth new iterations of various technical specifications 
like XHTML 2 and HTML5 do to some degree seem to develop in their own 
respective bubbles. In truth I do not envy those who worked to develop 
the WCAG 2 spec as there are just so much politics, vendor and 
proprietary interests at play, it is amazing that a semi-cogent set of 
guidelines has managed to surface at all. Never mind that i think the 
new set of guidelines are a vast improvement.

> So whilst I think it is great for people to push and push hard to get
> accessibility at the forefront of web design (and should it not be included
> at the beginning of every specification?) I do feel they should do it
> through the core channels, working with the W3C rather than in conflict with
> them.  If the people who complain so loudly about the W3C spent as much
> effort to helping them...well the rest speaks for itself.

Well, I think that Joe has made a career out of it. Though I guess he 
soon found out that it didn't pay the bills. While I really respect him 
and what he has done for accessibility he seems more of a liability 
sometimes.

> I'm not a bureaucratic person (my boss at my last company would testify to
> that) but even I have to admit that it is easier selling accessibility to
> clients if there is one central place to point them to for standards. 

Thats true.

> Re: the earlier points regarding PDF.  My professional opinion is that PDFs
> have no place in accessibility - and anyone claiming them "out of scope" of
> the WCAG is terribly misled.  

They are very much used in the wild and are not going away. Its good 
that their accessibility is getting better.

>(X)HTML is *the* mark-up language for the web,
> end of discussion.  

Not quite. While XHTML is indeed a better language in terms of its well 
formedness, enforced rules, extensible nature etc it is not properly 
supported by the most used browsers etc. Most XHTML is actually parsed 
as HTML so to some degree until this changes the discussion is moot.

>PDFs are great in business for speed and efficiency but
> in no instance should they be used for the primary (and in my humble opinion
> neither the secondary) format of content on the web.  

It is great for sighted users but you are right that it should not be 
seen as a silver bullet for every use case and mode of interaction.

>..anyone not capable of creating a decent print css should not be
> working on the web.

I am rather sympathetic towards designers who struggle with CSS. I have 
to say I was one for years. As I come from a graphic design background 
(originally in print) it is *very* difficult to move from designing via 
graphic programs a la Photoshop etc to rules based programming (which is 
what CSS really is). Throw in poor support for standards, the need for 
hacks etc and it quickly becomes difficult to do things that should 
actually be rather simple.

Cheers

Josh

********************************************************************

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments 
is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of 
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify 
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to 
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated 
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, 
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are 
transmitted.  We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent the views of NCBI


********************************************************************