Kat wrote: >> Can you claim WCAG 1.0 AAA rating if >> your preferred stylesheet doesn't >> have sufficient color contrast for >> low-vision users but instead you have >> a stylesheet switcher and properly >> marked up alternate style sheets >> that do?
Felix wrote: > Why do you find it necessary to have it > in reduced accessibility mode by > default? Why not make the alternate > stylesheet reduce the contrast? I > don't see how you can claim compliance > with the spirit if not the letter > otherwise. I have to agree with Felix on this one. If you're really striving to create a site for the highest possible level of accessibility, you really need to begin with a site that "is there," not just one "the user can get there." Consider the user who actually needs a higher-than-normal level of contrast. How would they be able to negotiate the site to find the user preference control? The natural solution to this conundrum, of course -- as we don't really want to present the largest percentage of users who don't need a higher-than-normal level of contrast -- is to offer the default view, but with an incredibly obvious user preference control first and foremost at the top of the document; and for the sake of design, it should look good. Patrick nailed it, though. Practically- and perhaps even technically-speaking, there's no way to make a site AAA, not really. Some sites could be given those three letters without too much shame, I will go that far, there are after all are some great sites out there, but we can do this only if we lower the bar to a more reasonable level. How many languages are we supposed to support anyway? All of them?! A site will always be less than perfect to someone, and that part will remain true even if every/everyone's user-agent suddenly offers all of the needed support. The reason for that: well, not all users will know the functionality exists or how to use it. (This last part is not the fault of the developer of course, but it doesn't make our sites any more accessible and usable either.) As conscientious developers we do the best with can by removing as many accessibility and usability barriers as possible, and every little bit we do enhances the Internet as a whole. It makes the web a better place. But it is a compromise because we must also observe, and quite rightfully so, tasteful design, SEO, and much more, even to the point of considering our primary audiences. If it's difficult to make a flat-out triple-A site, it's equally difficult to strike the right balance and put a good face on all fronts of today's multifaceted web site. There is an expression which states one can't please all the people all of the time. There's quite a bit of truth in that. Sincerely, Mike Cherim PS. At Accessites, it is this delicate balance of artistry, accessibility, usability, and, you know, all that stuff, that we want to see. It is incredibly difficult, more so than we ever dreamed, on our end and that of the developer's. I would *love* to see a site earn a Timeless award. That will be an amazing website. We sometimes think we may have made it too difficult. We've only had two Classics awarded: Thierry's http://www.noteworthy.com/ and Helena Boylen's http://littleblueplane.com/. Both are top quality yet nearly four whole points away from the Timeless level. (Good luck, John!) ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
