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

Thanks, Loretta-- I figured it out later, forgot to write and say "Never
mind"!

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:59 PM
To: John M Slatin; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft of SC 3.1.4 and related techniques - please review


I did substantial restructuring of the sufficient techniques section. In
some cases, I changed the technique (or at least the title of the
technique). 

I moved the discussion of expansions vs explanations into a general
technique; I split the technique that only provides the definition for
the first occurrence from the one that provides them for all
occurrences; and I edited which techniques were applicable in those two
cases.

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:37 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: 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_Mee
> t_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_wi
> thin_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_Gl
> ossary
> 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_di
> ctionary_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=Abbreviati
> ons
> 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=Supplement
> al_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_P
> age
> 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 Tuesday, 7 February 2006 13:44:33 UTC