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

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:46:41 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070522114641.E6FE4BDA8@w3c4.w3.org>


Name: Jason White
Email: jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au
Affiliation: 
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.4.2
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: question
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
The definition of \"mechanism\", correctly in my opinion, makes it clear that a

mechanism can be provided by user agents. It need not be provided by the

author.



Under what circumstances is an author entitled to assume that a mechanism to

turn off the audio, or to regulate the volume, is available, assuming that it

is not required to be implemented by any of the technologies included in the

list of accessibility-supported Web technologies referred to in the author\'s

WCAG 2.0 conformance claim?



Note that control over the rendering of audio is required by UAAG 1.0

guidelines 3 and 4. Thus, if the author wants to assume that this is

available, should this be achieved by including UAAG 1.0 in the list of

accessibility-supported Web technologies, effectively specifying that a

UAAG-conformant user agent is required in order for the content to meet WCAG

2.0?

Proposed Change:
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 11:46:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC