RE: SC 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

Sorry, Loretta, I missed this one over the weekend!

Let's make sure we discuss it on the call tomorrow.

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 19, 2006 12:37 am
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: SC 3.1.1 and 3.1.2


I've been editing 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, primarily to put them into the
standard template format.  Could you please review them?

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Crit
erio
n_3.1.1
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Crit
erio
n_3.1.2

I have a few specific requests:
1. Can someone provide examples and a test procedure for the 3.1.2
failure
  "Failure due to using CSS styling to control directionality in
XHTML/HTML"
  (My CSS is even worse than my HTML.)

2. As far as I can tell from the resources, there are many (but not all)
instances where the Unicode bidirectional algorithm is sufficient to
determine left-to-right and right-to-left properties of the tests.
Should we list using Unicode as a general technique? Or should this be
addressed in the discussion of "Identifying text direction of passage
and phrases"? Only there is no conditional in our sufficient technique.
Are there additional accessibility-related requirements for marking up
all changes in direction explicitly?

3. I reduced the number of common failures related to text direction. I
think people would be better served reading Richard Ishida's discussions
of these issues. Doe this seem ok?

4. The HTML technique " Using the lang attribute to identify changes in
the natural language" discusses lang vs xml:lang, etc. Do we want to
continue to itemize those distinctions in the How To Meet document, as
currently written?

Loretta

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 22:28:05 UTC