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

thoughts/comments on Issues 581, 597, 602

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:19:37 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20060603161723.00c346e0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org

Issue 581:

May need some discussion. Change of context is different from a change of
content. WCAG2.0 defines in Glossary "change of context" and "content".
Some additional definitions of "context" I found were "discourse that
surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation", "the 
set of facts,
circumstances, and conditions which surround an event", "the items in scope
with respect to the current position in the document", "the circumstances 
relevant
to something under consideration", "the part of a text or statement that 
surrounds
a particular word or passage and determines its meaning", and "the 
circumstances
in which an event occurs (a setting)" . This SC does not specifically disallow
activities involving change of content, but in general, do we need to more 
explicitly
delineate/separate the concepts of content and context in WCAG?


Issue 597:

Reword the note to take account of the concern expressed from deaf interests?
Maybe delete the part of the note beginning with "An audio version.." and
ending with "other combinations."? I don't completely understand what this 
part
adds to the note. Or maybe replace this part with "For example, many deaf 
people
understand sign language better than written language, because sign language
is their mother tongue. With sign language, texts above upper secondary
education level are more understandable for deaf people." (words from the 
"proposed
change")?


Issue 602:

Needs discussion. What are some techniques (or examples) of how to create
content at a lower reading level than the original material, but which conveys
the same meaning as the original material? To show that our approach is
not "unrealistic" (as the commenter alludes), we need counterexamples as to
how in practice this can be done while preserving the same functionality or
meaning? Furthermore, the word "alternative version" may imply a different
level of functionality, so perhaps another word can be used?

Thoughts? Comments?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2006 20:20:49 GMT

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