Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 09/20/05 23:30

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, kchayka wrote:

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> >
> > you can't just look at the one stylesheet and
> > reckon the job complete - in general you've got to consider cascading with
> > a stylesheet not under the author's control
>
> I won't argue that, but you can't ignore the graphic design aspect of
> the cascade. Setting background colors and images that show through to
> child elements, while using different foreground colors on those
> children, is going to happen.

I'm sorry if you got the impression that I, personally, was trying to stop
anyone from doing that! I'm just trying to present what I understand to
be the logic behind this issue - why the checker is reporting what it's
reporting, and hoping to help folks understand the principles behind it,
so that they can get from it any benefit that can be had.

As far as "background colours shining through": if you set the background
colour for the underlying element, then you'll have no problem
re-specifying it for the overlying element, and the result will look the
same, if it's not cascaded with a contradictory stylesheet. But when a
design -is- cascaded with a contradictory stylesheet, surely the first
priority is that content is still, at least, visible, and preferably,
readable? If that can be done without impairing the original design, why
not go for it? That's all that I'm saying.

On the other hand, you've raised an interesting point regarding background
images. If they are re-specified for the overlying element, then there's
no guarantee that they'll line-up with the underlying element, which
*could* be a motive for using transparency. On the other hand, displaying
text over a background image turns out all too often to be an unreadable
mess on some reader's screens. Maybe the background image is best
confined to the underlying canvas, and the overlying element with its text
better displayed against a tasteful plain colour. But that's a decision
that the designer has to take, not me. I'm just asking them to make an
*informed* decision, based on known properties of the medium.

> To say it shouldn't be done is to say
> poo-poo to any graphic design at all. That isn't going to happen, nor
> should it.

What I'm saying is: understand the properties of the medium before taking
decisions. And this aspect of the cascade is part of understanding the
properties of the medium.

> Regardless, an author cannot predict what user rules might be thrown
> into the mix, nor is it realistic to even try - it makes my head swim
> even thinking of all the possibilities.

There's also the scenario of the mandatory corporate stylesheet, with
individual designers only allowed to cascade with it, not to amend it.

OK, I can't point you to an actual instance yet, but something like that
is sure to happen, in places, it seems to me.

> IMO, if a user invokes their own stylesheet, it is their responsibility
> to make sure they set both foreground and background colors,

Yes, just as much so as it's the designer's responsibility to do the same.
The logic only works if all the participants play by those rules.

> as well as !important rules. You can't blame the author for the user's
> mistakes.

Equally, you can't blame the user for the author's mistakes. But when
push comes to shove, the user has the last word: if they can see that the
cascade is going amiss, they can turn off the author's styles altogether.
Seems to me that a clever author would want to avoid that happening, by
doing whatever was possible to make the user's "ultimate sanction"
unnecessary. If you see what I mean.

But at bottom, the final decision isn't mine, it's the author's. I say
again: I just want their decisions to be taken on the basis of
understanding the properties of their medium, rather than insisting (as
we've surely seen all too often?) that they want to "force" it to look
pixel-exactly like their paper draft.

all the best

[Back to original message]