W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2007

Fwd: Comment LC-1116

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:02:18 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0707061702p8399468o43419789547c8528@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Jul 6, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: Comment LC-1116
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>


I am happy to close this comment

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: Saturday, 7 July 2007 2:21 AM
To: Gian Sampson-Wild
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comment LC-1116

I'm sorry  - I should have provided the SC number in the current draft
as well as in the original draft that you commented on. This is now SC
3.3.1.

Loretta

On 7/6/07, Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> wrote:
> I don't see a 2.5.1
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 7 July 2007 12:36 AM
> To: Gian Sampson-Wild
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comment LC-1116
>
> This comment referred to SC 2.5.1 "If an input error is detected, the
> error is identified and described to the user in text."
>
> Loretta
>
> On 7/6/07, Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> wrote:
> > Comment 89:
> >
> > Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
> > (Issue ID: LC-1116)
> >
> > Examples: The example implies that this SC requires that correctly
filled
> > out fields are kept available after reload - is this what this SC
> requires?
> >
> > Proposed Change:
> >
> > Clarify the SC
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Response from Working Group:
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > You are right that the success criteria doesn't require all correctly
> filled
> > out fields to be kept available after reload. We don't believe we can
> > require this at Level A, however, as there may be valid reasons, such as
> > security and privacy, for not doing this. We have modified the example
to
> > use an alert instead of a page reload. If authors use this technique, a
> good
> > benefit is that the user's original entries will be preserved even
though
> > the success criterion doesn't require it.
> > ----------------------------
> > Response from GSW:
> > ----------------------------
> > Does this alert require client-side scripting and if so, should WCAG2 be
> > requiring the use of a particular technology? Is it possible to say
"keep
> > fields after reload unless information has security or privacy
> requirements
> > and instead then provide an alert"? If you can remind me of which SC
this
> > refers to I can comment more accurately.
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 00:02:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:22 GMT