W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Comments Batch #5 (Michael Stenitzer)

From: Thomas Jewett <jewett@csulb.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:37:15 -0700
To: Eric Eggert <w3c@yatil.de>,public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
Message-ID: <web-19504761@romulus.csulb.edu>
No additional comments.

Tom

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:40:17 +0200
  Eric Eggert <w3c@yatil.de> wrote:
>> #23) skipnav: increase the line-height slighly for 
>>better readability
> Yes, we should do that
> 
>> #24) access-toggle: do not "abuse" the » for a visual 
>>element, consider a background image
> We should do that, too
> 
>> #25) the hidden "copyright notice" label in the footer 
>>is kind of redundant information
> Yes, this is redundant, probably change the wording.
> 
>> #26) accessible home page: while zooming (text only) the 
>>h2 needs a clear to the left
> Yes. The text “Elsewhere on the Web” renders ugly 
>without clearing
> 
>> #27) accessible home page: while zooming (text only) the 
>>tab-navigation gets disconnected from the demo-page 
>>below. this is due to the #mnav a, #mnav .current { ... 
>>height: 20px ...}
> We should remove the height.
> 
>> #28) accessible home page - annotations: add the word 
>>technique (at least in the title-attribute) for every 
>>technique link, as it might not be clear for everybody 
>>that H37 is not a secret accessibility code ...
> Yes.
> 
>> #29) accessible home page - annotations: the 
>>html-elements and attributes are not consistently marked 
>>up within CODE-elements
> Reject. The actual code for annotations will have 
>consistent markup, I think.
> 
>> #30) accessible home page - annotations: why did you 
>>decide to clone the annotations instead of just 
>>temporarily changing the style to bring them in 
>>foreground?
> Reject. Changing styles, getting blocks out of context 
>may lead to
> extreme confusion and jumps of the page. Temporarily 
>cloning the text
> is the save version. (Then again it is a matter of 
>scripting styles.)
> 
>> #31) accessible survey: shouldn't we indicate the 
>>required fields in advance. the note which are required 
>>comes after submitting the form
> We should add a text “required if not otherwise 
>noticed”.
> 
>> #32) accessible survey: HTML-Error_option disabled="yes"
> Should be changed to disabled="disabled" or disabled="" 
>(or, as we use
> HTML, even to disabled)
> 
>> #33) accessible survey: HTML-Error: even more errors 
>>after form processing
> No (more) errors here.
> 
>> #34) accessible survey - after submission: style for the 
>>error summary needs a little enclosing, maybe a border 
>>around the whole error block
> Don’t think so, it is apparent enough that those are the 
>errors…
> 
>> #35) accessible survey - after submission: indicate the 
>>required fields with an asterisk in any case at the end 
>>of the label and with the visible wording "required" in 
>>red if the input was missing
> Don’t think we need this, required fields are indicated 
>w/ asterisk
> and a red border.
> 
>> #36-#39) various table summaries
> No. (the headings provide enough information, a summary 
>would just
> introduce redundancy. We should, however, add a notice 
>that our tables
> are not complicated enough to introduce summaries. I 
>personally use it
> virtually never.)
> 
> Regards, Eric
> 
> -- 
> Eric Eggert
> 
> Waldfischbacher Straße 20, 66978 Leimen/Pfalz, 
>Deutschland
> Laudongasse 36/714, 1080 Wien, Österreich
> 
> http://yatil.de/ | http://snookerblog.de/
> 
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 17:37:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 August 2009 17:37:51 GMT