RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received

11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have

another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with

their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian

nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On

Behalf Of David Hucklesby

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

 

 

  _  

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received

11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have

another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with

their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian

nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On

Behalf Of David Hucklesby

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

  _  

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

 

On 13 Jan 2010, at 21:30, Chabot, Elliot wrote:





The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2,

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.   

Err, yes. As I said (and you quoted!):

Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal
grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document.

Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers
to 'markup' rather than 'documents').

 

-- 

David Dorward

http://dorward.me.uk

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Thierry Koblentz]

Hi David,

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
>>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
>>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
>>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
>>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
>>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
>>
>> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
>> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
>> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
>> though).

> At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
> elements with default or applied "display: block;" -
>
>   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */
>   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */
>
> Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

> I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
> problems?

Not as I know of. 
That technique is good too for people who care for validation, but the fact 
that it can't be in the same rule is a pain for maintenance. 
As a side note, I don't think I'd use it the way you do though - as you're 
using markup (the class) to fix a browser issue (unless that selector is just 
to demonstrate the technique).
 

--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Ted Drake
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:54 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Nick

Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style
sheet.

It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style
sheet can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout
without causing other issues.  This is what Microsoft recommended when they
introduced IE7 and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Stone

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:26 AM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Christian,

 

You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate 

sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so. 

 

In the example you provided, I'd do this:

1) move "zoom: 1" to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)

2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 

3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet

 

Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.

 

Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of.  I'd be interested to hear others.

Pros

A) enables CSS validation

B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test

C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)

 

Con

A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server

 

 

Aloha,

Nick Stone

 

-- 

Nick Stone, MBA

SEO & Web Accessibility || coding, writing & consulting

boa...@nick-stone.com

http://nick-stone.com/

434-284-2840

 

 

 

c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:

> 

> 

> > From: 

> > I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to

> > fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?

> > 

> >

> > Hi Christian,

> >

> > If you mean things like zoom or even proprietary -Moz or -KHTML

> > properties... no, that doesn't affect accessibility. Guidelines are

> > subjective in that it's up to the site's owner to say whether or not

> > his site is accessible after testing it against the various guidelines.

> > The W3 validator is the issue. It should have been programmed years ago

> > to ignore most, if not all, proprietary properties.

> >

> > --

> > Al Sparber - PVII

> > http://www.projectseven.com

> > Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets

> > http://www.projectseven.com/go/hgm

> > The Ultimate Web 2.0 Carousel

> 

> Specifically, I mean something like this

> 

> .element {float:left;display:inline;zoom:1;margin-right:30px;}

>  * html .element {float:none;} /* IE6 */

>  *+ html .element {float:right;} /* IE7 */

> 

> I've been told to put these IE specific attributes in a seperate IE 

> stylesheet in order to avoid validation errors that supposedly affect 

> the AAA Acessibility check.

> 

> 

> ***

> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

> *** 

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

> Nick

> Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate
style sheet.

> It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user
style sheet 

> can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without
causing 

> other issues.  

> This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7 and there's
not a strong reason to avoid it.

 

Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is to use
min/max-height or min/max-height.

But I agree, zoom's perfect for those who don't care for CSS validation
(does not work in IE5 though). 

 

 

--

Regards,

Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received

11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have

another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with

their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian

nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On

Behalf Of David Hucklesby

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

  _  

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Chabot, Elliot
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2,

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.   

Incidentally, checkpoint 3.2 is a requirement for Double-A conformance in
WCAG 1.0.

Elliot Chabot

Web Solutions Branch

House Information Resources

U.S. House of Representatives

http://www.house.gov 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:46 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:

> Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a
required attribute for compliance.

No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance:

. Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints
are satisfied;

Appendix A doesn't list any checkpoints.

> I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to fail
AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?

Maybe and no. There are IE-related CSS hacks that are valid, and others that
are not.

The valid ones don't cause it to fail any checkpoint, as far as I know.

Guideline 3 says "Use markup and style sheets and do so properly" and you
could make a case that invalid CSS is not "using style sheets properly".

Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal
grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document.

Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers
to 'markup' rather than 'documents').

-- 

David Dorward

http://dorward.me.uk

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received

11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have

another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with

their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian

nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On

Behalf Of David Hucklesby

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of c...@fagandesign.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:53 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Quoting Nick Stone :

 

> Christian,

> 

> You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate

> sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so.

> Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.

 

> C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific
rules)

 

Thanks for the feedback Nick.

 

I guess it's a personal preference to have the IE specific  

declarations right next to the original/good browser onesI find  

it's far easier to debug rather than having a seperate IE stylesheet.  

This is the way I've done it for ages now and until now, haven't run  

into any problems.

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

  _  

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Stone
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:26 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Christian,

 

You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate 

sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so. 

 

In the example you provided, I'd do this:

1) move "zoom: 1" to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)

2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 

3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet

 

Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.

 

Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of.  I'd be interested to hear others.

Pros

A) enables CSS validation

B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test

C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)

 

Con

A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server

 

 

Aloha,

Nick Stone

 

-- 

Nick Stone, MBA

SEO & Web Accessibility || coding, writing & consulting

boa...@nick-stone.com

http://nick-stone.com/

434-284-2840

 

 

 

c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:

> 

> 

> > From: 

> > I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to

> > fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?

> > 

> >

> > Hi Christian,

> >

> > If you mean things like zoom or even proprietary -Moz or -KHTML

> > properties... no, that doesn't affect accessibility. Guidelines are

> > subjective in that it's up to the site's owner to say whether or not

> > his site is accessible after testing it against the various guidelines.

> > The W3 validator is the issue. It should have been programmed years ago

> > to ignore most, if not all, proprietary properties.

> >

> > --

> > Al Sparber - PVII

> > http://www.projectseven.com

> > Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets

> > http://www.projectseven.com/go/hgm

> > The Ultimate Web 2.0 Carousel

> 

> Specifically, I mean something like this

> 

> .element {float:left;display:inline;zoom:1;margin-right:30px;}

>  * html .element {float:none;} /* IE6 */

>  *+ html .element {float:right;} /* IE7 */

> 

> I've been told to put these IE specific attributes in a seperate IE 

> stylesheet in order to avoid validation errors that supposedly affect 

> the AAA Acessibility check.

> 

> 

> ***

> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

> *** 

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:03 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

> In the example you provided, I'd do this:

> 1) move "zoom: 1" to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)

> 2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 

> 3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet

> 

> Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.

> 

> Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of.  I'd be interested to hear
others.

> Pros

> A) enables CSS validation

> B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test

> C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific
rules)

 

I'd say it is the opposite. Having to deal with rules in different files
does not facilitate site maintenance.

 

> Con

> A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server

 

That's a pretty *big* CON compared to A and B

 

 

--

Regards,

Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received

11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have

another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with

their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian

nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On

Behalf Of David Hucklesby

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Houstin R. Hutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received

11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have

another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with

their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian

nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On

Behalf Of David Hucklesby

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***

 

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

  _  

From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Chabot, Elliot
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 4:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2,

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.   

Incidentally, checkpoint 3.2 is a requirement for Double-A conformance in
WCAG 1.0.

Elliot Chabot

Web Solutions Branch

House Information Resources

U.S. House of Representatives

http://www.house.gov 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:46 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:

> Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a
required attribute for compliance.

No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance:

. Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints
are satisfied;

Appendix A doesn't list any checkpoints.

> I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to fail
AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?

Maybe and no. There are IE-related CSS hacks that are valid, and others that
are not.

The valid ones don't cause it to fail any checkpoint, as far as I know.

Guideline 3 says "Use markup and style sheets and do so properly" and you
could make a case that invalid CSS is not "using style sheets properly".

Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal
grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document.

Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers
to 'markup' rather than 'documents').

-- 

David Dorward

http://dorward.me.uk

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 
different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.
It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

Houstin

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.
>
> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
> though).
>

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */
   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?

Cordially,
David
--


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Houstin R. Hutton]

Sorry to see that you have been also spammed by some jerk. I have received
11 e-mails spam from 

different people who were contacted by the same "Group".

 

Some person, if one would call them that has done it to us all. I have
another word for them. Spammers.

It is unfortunate that some people have nothing constructive to do with
their lives except raise hell.

 

I sent a question to a forum at Web Standards Group but I am not Christian
nor is that related to my question.

 

Houstin

 

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of David Hucklesby
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:44 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>> Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and

>> separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show

>> the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this

>> rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other

>> issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7

>> and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

> 

> Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is

> to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect

> for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5

> though).

> 

 

At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on

elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

 

   .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */

   .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

 

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

 

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known

problems?

 

Cordially,

David

--

 

 

***

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm

Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[David Hucklesby]

On 1/13/10 12:24 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:

Nick Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and
separate style sheet. It's a valid rule that basically says show
the screen at 100%. A user style sheet can still over-ride this
rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without causing other
issues. This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7
and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.


Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is
to use min/max-height or min/max-height. But I agree, zoom's perfect
for those who don't care for CSS validation (does not work in IE5
though).



At the moment, I am using this to trigger hasLayout for IE 6+7 on
elements with default or applied "display: block;" -

  .add-layout { display: inline-block; } /* add "layout" to IE 6+7 */
  .add-layout { display: block; } /* does not reset "layout" */

Valid CSS and does not seem to disturb other browsers.

I may be all wet, but limited testing so far seems to work. Any known
problems?

Cordially,
David
--


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[David Dorward]

 
On 13 Jan 2010, at 21:30, Chabot, Elliot wrote:

> The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint 3.2, 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.  
> 
Err, yes. As I said (and you quoted!):
> Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal 
> grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document.
> 
> Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers 
> to 'markup' rather than 'documents').
> 

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[cf]

Quoting Nick Stone :


Christian,

You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so.
Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.



C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)


Thanks for the feedback Nick.

I guess it's a personal preference to have the IE specific  
declarations right next to the original/good browser onesI find  
it's far easier to debug rather than having a seperate IE stylesheet.  
This is the way I've done it for ages now and until now, haven't run  
into any problems.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Chabot, Elliot]

The requirement for validation in WCAG 1.0 is contained in checkpoint
3.2,
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar.   

Incidentally, checkpoint 3.2 is a requirement for Double-A conformance
in WCAG 1.0.


Elliot Chabot
Web Solutions Branch
House Information Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
http://www.house.gov 


-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:46 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

 
On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:
> Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a
required attribute for compliance.

No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance:

* Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3
checkpoints are satisfied;

Appendix A doesn't list any checkpoints.

> I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to
fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?

Maybe and no. There are IE-related CSS hacks that are valid, and others
that are not.

The valid ones don't cause it to fail any checkpoint, as far as I know.

Guideline 3 says "Use markup and style sheets and do so properly" and
you could make a case that invalid CSS is not "using style sheets
properly".

Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal
grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document.

Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when
refers to 'markup' rather than 'documents').

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Thierry Koblentz]

> Nick
> Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style 
> sheet.
> It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style 
> sheet 
> can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without 
> causing 
> other issues.  
> This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced IE7 and there's not a 
> strong reason to avoid it.

Another way to trigger hasLayout in IE7 without failing validation is to use 
min/max-height or min/max-height.
But I agree, zoom's perfect for those who don't care for CSS validation (does 
not work in IE5 though). 


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Thierry Koblentz]

> In the example you provided, I'd do this:
> 1) move "zoom: 1" to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
> 2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 
> 3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet
>
> Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.
>
> Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of.  I'd be interested to hear others.
> Pros
> A) enables CSS validation
> B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test
> C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)

I'd say it is the opposite. Having to deal with rules in different files does 
not facilitate site maintenance.

> Con
> A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server

That's a pretty *big* CON compared to A and B


--
Regards,
Thierry | www.tjkdesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

RE: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Ted Drake]

Nick
Zoom:1 is not bad enough to warrant a conditional comment and separate style 
sheet.
It's a valid rule that basically says show the screen at 100%. A user style 
sheet can still over-ride this rule. It's an easy way to add hasLayout without 
causing other issues.  This is what Microsoft recommended when they introduced 
IE7 and there's not a strong reason to avoid it.

-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On 
Behalf Of Nick Stone
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:26 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

Christian,

You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate 
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so. 

In the example you provided, I'd do this:
1) move "zoom: 1" to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 
3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet

Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.

Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of.  I'd be interested to hear others.
Pros
A) enables CSS validation
B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test
C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)

Con
A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server


Aloha,
Nick Stone

-- 
Nick Stone, MBA
SEO & Web Accessibility || coding, writing & consulting
boa...@nick-stone.com
http://nick-stone.com/
434-284-2840



c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:
>
>
> > From: 
> > I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to
> > fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?
> > 
> >
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > If you mean things like zoom or even proprietary -Moz or -KHTML
> > properties... no, that doesn't affect accessibility. Guidelines are
> > subjective in that it's up to the site's owner to say whether or not
> > his site is accessible after testing it against the various guidelines.
> > The W3 validator is the issue. It should have been programmed years ago
> > to ignore most, if not all, proprietary properties.
> >
> > --
> > Al Sparber - PVII
> > http://www.projectseven.com
> > Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets
> > http://www.projectseven.com/go/hgm
> > The Ultimate Web 2.0 Carousel
>
> Specifically, I mean something like this
>
> .element {float:left;display:inline;zoom:1;margin-right:30px;}
>  * html .element {float:none;} /* IE6 */
>  *+ html .element {float:right;} /* IE7 */
>
> I've been told to put these IE specific attributes in a seperate IE 
> stylesheet in order to avoid validation errors that supposedly affect 
> the AAA Acessibility check.
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
> *** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[Nick Stone]

Christian,

You said you've been told to place IE specific rules in a separate 
sheet, but you don't mention why you haven't done so. 


In the example you provided, I'd do this:
1) move "zoom: 1" to your IE6 rule (and to IE7 rule if necessary)
2) place the IE6 and IE7 rules in an IE ONLY sheet 
3) use a conditional comment to call the IE sheet


Would that work?  If so, please explain your reasons for not doing so.

Here are the pros and cons I'm aware of.  I'd be interested to hear others.
Pros
A) enables CSS validation
B) avoids possible failure of automated accessibility test
C) facilitates site maintenance (easy to find and modify IE specific rules)

Con
A) Delays initial page load by requiring additional call to the server


Aloha,
Nick Stone

--
Nick Stone, MBA
SEO & Web Accessibility || coding, writing & consulting
boa...@nick-stone.com
http://nick-stone.com/
434-284-2840



c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:



> From: 
> I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to
> fail AAA (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?
> 
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> If you mean things like zoom or even proprietary -Moz or -KHTML
> properties... no, that doesn't affect accessibility. Guidelines are
> subjective in that it's up to the site's owner to say whether or not
> his site is accessible after testing it against the various guidelines.
> The W3 validator is the issue. It should have been programmed years ago
> to ignore most, if not all, proprietary properties.
>
> --
> Al Sparber - PVII
> http://www.projectseven.com
> Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets
> http://www.projectseven.com/go/hgm
> The Ultimate Web 2.0 Carousel

Specifically, I mean something like this

.element {float:left;display:inline;zoom:1;margin-right:30px;}
 * html .element {float:none;} /* IE6 */
 *+ html .element {float:right;} /* IE7 */

I've been told to put these IE specific attributes in a seperate IE 
stylesheet in order to avoid validation errors that supposedly affect 
the AAA Acessibility check.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*** 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] AAA Accessibility and validation

[David Dorward]

 
On 13 Jan 2010, at 04:02, c...@fagandesign.com.au wrote:
> Now, this Accessibility Appendix lists CSS validation (point 3) as a required 
> attribute for compliance.

No, it doesn't. The document says, under conformance:

• Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints 
are satisfied;

Appendix A doesn't list any checkpoints.

> I guess my question is: Do IE-related CSS hacks cause a document to fail AAA 
> (or A/AA for that matter) Accessibility compliance?

Maybe and no. There are IE-related CSS hacks that are valid, and others that 
are not.

The valid ones don't cause it to fail any checkpoint, as far as I know.

Guideline 3 says "Use markup and style sheets and do so properly" and you could 
make a case that invalid CSS is not "using style sheets properly".

Checkpoint 3.2 says "Create documents that validate to published formal 
grammars.", but it can be argued that a style sheet is not a document.

Meanwhile, WCAG 2.0 makes no requirement that CSS be valid (and when refers to 
'markup' rather than 'documents').

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***

Re: [WSG] IE Issue

[Stuart Foulstone]

Why,oh why, don't people validate their code and remove their own errors
before complaining about some browser or other doing it wrong.

This is supposed to be Standards list.


On Wed, January 13, 2010 2:34 am, stephanie campanella wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> I'm experiencing an issue with IEUn common i know.
>
> I've added a calculator (exe to html) to a web page and after adding the
> css/jscript associated with the calculator these things changed:
> 1) Tags have appeared differently ( / )
>
> 2)The page is now also justified left.
>
> 3) The ul menu across the top (resellers, licensees, support...) is also
> stacking like a set of stairs.
>
> I'm assuming the css is confused between to files and reading both or
> something. My main css file is biab.css
>
> Only IE is causing the major issues. Firefox, safari etc seem to be fine.
>
> My site's address is http://www.braininabox.com.au/coi.html
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Stephanie Campanella
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
> ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***