RE: Draft of SC 3.1.4 and related techniques - please review

Thanks, Loretta.

When I reviewed the How to Meet doc in the WIKI, the only new content
appeared to be in the Techniques section. Did you update the Intent
section as well? (Maybe JAWS isn't picking this up?)
Other comments below.

John 



"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino
Reid
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 9:30 am
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: Draft of SC 3.1.4 and related techniques - please review


I have a draft available of How to Meet SC 3.1.4:

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Crit
erio
n_3.1.4

I had to rework the How To document, and in some cases I have added
restrictions or explanations that may go beyond our common
understanding. So please review what I've done with it, as well as the
specific techniques:

General techniques:

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Providing_the_expansion_
or_e
xplanation_of_an_abbreviation

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Providing_the_abbreviati
on_i
mmediately_following_the_first_use_of_the_expanded_form_within_the_deliv
ery_
unit

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Linking_to_definitions
[jms] The example about the definition of "modulo" was surprising-- it
makes sense in the context of a general technique about linking to
definitions, but I was thinking about abbreviations and acronyms. This
is one of the hazards of sharing techniques across multiple SC. Not sure
how to deal with it-- probably needs to be addressed on a case by case
basis.

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_a_Glossary
Example 3 is about searching a medical dictionary; probably shouldn't be
in the technique on Using a glossary. (Could be used in an HTML
Technique on <link rel="glossary" ...>

I think it was in this There's a note to the editors in this technique
about idioms and jargon. There is some material on this in the 30 June
working draft at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20050630/meaning-idioms.html


http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Searching_an_on-line_dic
tionary
Still sounds rough-- more like notes toward a technique. Doesn't seem to
use the template...
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_a_dictionary_casca
de
Ditto. I think this is content pasted in from the 30 June WD.

HTML techniques:

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Abbreviations
The examples don't seem quite consistent with the description or with
the definitions of acronym and initialism that took up so much time and
space on the list. "WWW" canbe marked as an acronym in HTML 4.01 and
XHTML 1.x (Example 1). KISS (Example 3) is an acronym, not an initialism
(according to the definitions...) because it can be pronounced as a
word. "ESP" for Extrasensory perception" is an initialism.
(Personally I don't care! But we went to a lot of trouble over this on
the list and on many calls, and there are definitions in our Glossary,
so...)

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Supplemental_Meaning_Cue
s
I think this one would have to be listed as an Advisory technique,
because as of February 2006 this supplemental info isn't available to
people using screen readers. So it should only be used in conjunction
with another technique that *is* sufficient.

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Glossary_Page
The example is a little cryptic. Also, Is this another technique that
has to be used in conjunction with something else in order to be
sufficient? (What do authors have to do so that users can find terms
that appear in the Glossary? WCAG links to every occurrence, for
example. Is this strictly necessary? Or would a link to the Glossary
itself be sufficient?)


Thanks, Loretta

Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 16:36:44 UTC