W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Tuesday, Aug 22 Team B Meeting

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:24:38 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920608220424v246d594djde870faf6a4530c4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "Bengt Farre" <Bengt.Farre@androtech.se>

On 21/08/06, Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com> wrote:
>      At this point, we have 15: 609, 720, 734, 755, 777, 778, 915, 920, 968,
> 1068, 1105, 1174, 1299, 1331, 1376
>
>         You may want to review all the proposals for the same sort term
> together, since they often have the same or similar responses. Some of the
> relevant sort terms are "entered", "next-tab", and "popup windows".

I've gone through the comment above ...

Comment #734
The existing wording for SC 4.2.2 emphasises the point that it's
applicable even if the content uses a technology that is not in the
chosen baseline. The new wording contains a clause so that it's now
only applicable for content that is *not* in the chosen baseline. Is
that deliberate, as I would have thought it was possible that baseline
content could equally fail this success criterion?

Comment #755
Why is a clause necessary at all? Changing the setting of a complex
control, such as a tree control, does not cause a change of context
according to our definition. The change is within the control itself,
and the role, state, and other properties would be relayed to the
accessibility architecture (providing SC 4.1.2 is met). I agree with
the commenter that the clause should be removed, as it's subjective
and open to interpretation.

Comment #915
suggest adding "might" in the final sentence of the example:

"Other user agents [might] make the expanded form available as a
tooltip or as contextual help for the abbreviation."

Comment #920
Same issue as comment #734 in that the proposed wording is only
applicable to content outside of the baseline.

Comment #968
Same issue as comment #755 in that a clause isn't necessary, as the
behaviour is part of the control's expected behaviour.

Comment #1174
Same issue as comments #920 and #734, except commenter makes the point
that the instructions to exit the content are described in technology
included in the baseline. That's a good catch, but hasn't addressed in
the solution.

Comment #1299
Same issue as comments #969 and #755 - clause not necessary

Comment #1331
Same as comments #1173, #920, and #734


Best regards,

Gez


-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 11:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:44 GMT