W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:10:07 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819033110A7@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>

Dear WCAG WG, 

We are satisfied with your resolution for this issue.
Thank you very much.

Regards, 
 CI.

_______________

Carlos Iglesias

Fundación CTIC
Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España

teléfono: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org 


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Enviado el: sábado, 22 de marzo de 2008 0:20
> Para: Carlos Iglesias
> CC: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December,
> 2007
> 
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Carlos Iglesias
> <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> >  > Comment 4: User agents' incorrect behaviour while navigating
> sequentially
> >
> > > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-
> >  > wcag20/2008Feb/0050.html
> >  > (Issue ID: 2501)
> >  > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> >  > ----------------------------
> >  > Original Comment:
> >  > ----------------------------
> >  >
> >  > Due to some user agents' behaviour, several embedded elements that
> are
> >  > in theory operable through keyboard (for example a flash component if
> >  > correctly developed) are not reachable through keyboard while
> >  > navigating sequentially.
> >  >
> >  > How is this success criterion going to affect these elements?
> >  >
> >  > Could people say that such a web page pass this success criterion?
> >  >
> >  > ---------------------------------------------
> >  > Response from Working Group:
> >  > ---------------------------------------------
> >  >
> >  > In a case like this - where it is a shortcoming of one browser, but
> >  > not a problem with other browsers - we would say that it was a
> >  > reasonable assumption by the author that the user could exit. The
> >  > Working Group would encourage the author to provide an additional
> >  > redundant function which allows the user to exit that they know does
> >  > work in most browsers.
> >
> >  Apparently the current wording, especially F10 and G21, say the
> opposite.
> >
> >  [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/F10.html]
> >  [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/G21.html]
> >
> >  Maybe a reference that points people to some background information for
> those SCs where the user agent functionality plays a role would help.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For technology-specific techniques and failures, we have a section in
> each where user agent issues are highlighted.  User agents probably
> affect all the success criteria depending on which Web technologies
> you are using. As a result, we think it is most appropriate to keep
> these comments in the techniques where they are - and where they can
> highlight a problem with user agents for one technology without
> tainting the other user agents, technologies or situations where the
> problem may not exist.
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 12:10:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:25 GMT