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

RE: Comments 465, 466, 545 - Wording of Success Criterion 4.2.1, 4.2.3

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:22:19 -0500
To: "'Gez Lemon'" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Katie Haritos-Shea'" <kharitos-shea@cri-solutions.com>, <ryladog@earthlink.net>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00c701c69af0$8f111dd0$8b17a8c0@NC6000BAK>
 

In GV: and GREEN

 

Gregg

 

 -- ------------------------------ 

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.

Director - Trace R & D Center 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-

> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gez Lemon

> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:26 PM

> To: Gregg Vanderheiden

> Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea; ryladog@earthlink.net; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org

> Subject: Re: Comments 465, 466, 545 - Wording of Success Criterion 4.2.1,

> 4.2.3

> 

> 

> Hi Gregg,

> 

> > I agree with the discoverability part -- except if this became a widely

> > known convention.

> 

> I have reservations that it would become a widely known convention, as

> I still think there are better ways of addressing the issue.

> 

> > > * Ensure visitors see the accessible version first, with a

> > > link to the inaccessible version.

> >

> > If there is a link to the inaccessible version - then it has a URI and

> is a

> > web unit itself.  So this SC has to be applied to it as well.  And then

> it

> > fails.  (unless the site isn't required to be accessible in which case

> you

> > can just omit the page from conformance claim to start with)

> 

> I didn't realise that. I thought only the resources that were omitted

> from the conformance claim could be inaccessible. 

 

GV: you are correct.

 

I didn't realise

> that it meant content that linked to inaccessible content would also

> have to be omitted from the conformance claim.

 

GV: no - you were correct.  This is not correct.  You misunderstood what I
was saying I think. You had it right the first time

 

 Presumably, content

> that linked to the resource that linked to the inaccessible content

> would also fail? And site searches would have to ensure that

> inaccessible content didn't show up in the results, or there would be

> no way of ensuring a conformance claim?

 

GV: yes - this is true.  If that URI lies within the range of URI's that you
claim are conformant (or are required to have conformant) and it is a
primary resource (not a .gif or something from a page) then it is part of
your claim and it must be accessible.  And if not then a mechanism is needed
FROM THAT CONTENT to an accessible version.   At least that is what the
wording your group proposed and the WG approved.  

 

> 

> > Also - I could have Googled into this inaccessible page - so I would

> have no

> > way of finding the accessible page.

> 

> Cookies or session variables could be used, and if there isn't an

> explicit opt-in for the accessible version, the user could be

> redirected to the accessible version. That would also take care of

> cookies/session cookies not being accepted, as visitors would only

> receive the accessible content.

 

GV: do not follow this.  If  I land on a page from a search - and there are
no accessible controls on the page, and I've never been to the site before,
how do I get to the accessible version? 

 

 

> 

> > > * Style sheet switching (for technologies that support style

> > > sheet switching).

> >

> > Changing the HTML ending is 1000% easier than style sheet switching I'm

> > afraid.

> 

> Browsers that support style sheet switching use shortcut keys. It's

> far simpler to use the shortcut keys than trying to edit a URL in the

> address bar. For example, on my website, Alt+V Alt+Y, and a down arrow

> gets an alternate style sheet in Mozilla/Firefox (different keystrokes

> in other browsers, but just as simple). Obviously, that could be made

> even quicker using an access key. The equivalent for the address bar

> is F6, deselecting current URL, moving to the end of the URL (could be

> done in conjunction with the deselect), deleting the current extension

> and replacing it with ".html". I don't think that's a 1000% easier

> than switching style sheets - I think it's more difficult.

 

GV:  I'm not sure I see the connection to style sheets? If I land on a page
that is a LOCKED PDF - how does style sheet help me?   I'm not following. 

 

{we also need to have a style sheet discussion sometime. I tried polling
people I knew about style sheets and most don't know how to change them (or
what they are).  Even people with disabilities who could use them.  We need
to think about how to make them more obvious and useful. }

 

 

> 

> > > * User preferences (temporary measure until content negotiation is

> > > possible) - provide an area for people to set their

> > > preferences on the website, and then deliver the content

> > > according to those preferences.

> >

> > Doesn't meet the SC.   From the inaccessible page (if I got there from

> > GOOGLE) I have no way of finding the place on the website to turn on

> this

> > feature.

> 

> The suggestion of redirecting unless the page has been opted into

> could be used again.

> 

> > See the problem?

> 

> Yes, I do see the problem with my previous suggestions. Do you think

> there's mileage in using preferences, and if none have been set

> ensuring that the accessible version of the content is presented to

> the user?

 

GV: Preferences sounds like content negotiation of some type.   I really
think that that might be a long term solution - but we don't have that now
do we?    I have to say that this one has me really thinking. 

 

 

 

 

> 

> Best regards.

> 

> Gez

> 

> --

> _____________________________

> Supplement your vitamins

> http://juicystudio.com

 
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 20:22:30 GMT

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