W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > August 2009

Your Posts to the public list

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:49:45 -0500
Message-Id: <02CDF635-2C80-46F0-8F1D-BF262E188207@trace.wisc.edu>
To: wreagan1@yahoo.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Dear W. Reagan,

We have received a number of comments from you to the Public Comments  
list this weekend.	

The comments below that you sent are not comments on how to improve  
the guidelines or support documents but are instead requests to  
comment on or advise you on aspects of pages you are writing.  We are  
not able to respond to these types of inquiries.

The WCAG Public Comments List is for public comments on the WCAG  
documents. Please use this public comment list only to submit errors,  
omissions, issues, or needed clarifications to the documents.  
Suggestions for new techniques should be submitted using the  
Techniques for WCAG 2.0 submission form.

Please note that the public list should not be used to ask questions  
about particular websites or implementation issues. We just don't have  
the ability to respond to these questions.  Questions about how to  
apply WCAG, or how to apply it to a particular page or site should be  
sent
        a) to one of the many consultants working in the area,
        b) to the WAI Interest Group (IG) mailing list (w3c-wai-ig@w3.org 
),
    or c) to one of the many other mailing lists and forums that focus  
on Web accessibility.

Some general comments that may be helpful to you.

1) NOTHING is required that is not specifically required in the WCAG  
2.0 Guidelines.

	- and in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines - the ONLY things required are the  
SUCCESS CRITERIA and the Conformance Requirements that you can find in  
the CONFORMANCE section of WCAG 2.0

2) TECHNIQUES  are NEVER required.      They as simply options that  
you may or may not use to meet the Success criterion in WCAG 2.0

3) Some techniques will conflict with other techniques.  Since neither  
is required this is not a problem.  If two techniques conflict - then  
don't use both.

4) Read the Understanding document carefully to understand the Success  
Criteria.

  Thank You

Gregg and Loretta



=====================
YOUR COMMENTS
=====================

=============================================================

These are questions that should be addressed to consultants.  They do  
not fall into the category of things we need to change in the next  
release of the WCAG support documents.



=======================================================:

> Resent-From: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
> Date: August 2, 2009 8:36:48 PM CDT
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Link Purpose (In Context) SC 2.4.4
>
> I have adopted part of WCAG 2.4.4, technique C7 with technique G189.  
> This was used to hide (PDF, ZIP, WORD, etc.).
>
> I have links to government documents. The documents are in PDF. I  
> included technique G189 to indicate it was a PDF. However, I also  
> included, technique C7 to hide the word "PDF". My boss does not want  
> the text link "PDF", "Word", "Excel", "Powerpoint", "ZIP", or any  
> downloadable files to show as part of the text link..
>
> What options do I have to satify my boss and 2.4.4?
>
>
>
=======================================================:

> Resent-From: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
> Date: August 1, 2009 2:10:39 AM CDT
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Overlap between 2.4.9 and 3.2.4
>
> I was working on text links and it states at 2.4.9  "Links with the  
> same destination should have the same descriptions (per Success  
> Criterion 3.2.4 )". I cannot find link information at 3.2.4.
>
> I cannot find this information at 3.2.4 as as "Sufficient  
> Technique". If I used 2.4.9 to have links with the same destination,  
> does 3.2.4 automatically pass, or is there extra work to be done?
>
> If so, please explain the extra work.
>
=======================================================:

> Resent-From: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
> Date: July 31, 2009 12:04:00 PM CDT
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Link Text (2.4.4 and 2.4.9)
>
> Does Link Text for 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 mean that the title of the  
> destination must be the link that the user gives
>
> Instead of saying WCAG 2.0 in the link title is Web Content  
> Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)  2.0. The title of the link equals  
> the title of the destination page. Is it mandatory for 2.4.4 "and/ 
> or" 2.4.9?
>
> I want to meet both requirements. If it is not provided, are there  
> any other ways to write up Link Text to pass 2.4.4 and 2.4.9?
>
=======================================================:

> Resent-From: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
> Date: August 3, 2009 1:25:02 AM CDT
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Security vs. Keyboard Accessibility
>
> I have noticed that there are several host companies and several  
> individuals from Europe and Asia who post information on other sites  
> about us.
>
> If I used htaccess to block them, privacy would be safer than  
> without it.
>
>
> How can I manage my security'/privacy from European and Asian people  
> and also comply with WCAG 2?
>
=======================================================:

> Resent-From: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
> Date: August 1, 2009 1:54:32 AM CDT
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Hidden Text Links and 2.4.4
>
> If I create a text link that normally would pass 2.4.4 and 2.4.9,  
> and I create a portion of the text link is invisible, how does this  
> effect 2.4.4 and 2.4.9?
>
> The normal text link is still in the code.
>
> Do I need to get rid of the invisible version?
>
> If yes, what are my options when I want to hide portions of a text  
> link?
>
=======================================================:

> Resent-From: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
> Date: July 31, 2009 11:09:28 AM CDT
> To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Link Purpose
>
> What is the approrpriate method for link purpose (2.4.4 and 2.4.9)  
> when the destination of the link is a document that is "only"  
> available in PDF and/or ZIP?
>

  
  
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 18:50:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:12 UTC