W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Updated Team B Agenda for 13 Feb 2007 - one more issue added

From: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:50:55 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B0585BB67@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "TeamB" <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>

Additional comments below. And regrets for today.

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 john_slatin@austin.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 Slatin, John M
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:25 AM
To: Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
Subject: RE: Updated Team B Agenda for 13 Feb 2007 - one more issue
added



A note on LC 838:

<blockquote
cite="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual
.php?id=838
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=838">
@@Response to commenter: 
We have added "descriptive" to SC 2.4.3 and moved it to level 1. SC
2.4.5 addresses descriptive headings and labels, and it remains at level
3, since headings </blockquote>

Is this accurate? I see that "descriptive" has been added, but the
current internal draft (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/) shows SC 2.4.3
at L2, not L1.

I support moving this to L1. It's extremely helpful, and it's just not
that difficult to implement.

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 john_slatin@austin.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: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:19 PM
To: TeamB
Subject: Updated Team B Agenda for 13 Feb 2007 - one more issue added



My apologies that this is going out so late!

18:00 UTC
10:00 AM Palo Alto
1:00 PM Boston
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=8386:00
PM England, Ireland
3:00 AM (Jan 24) Japan
Bridge: +1.617.761.6200 Passcode 92248#

irc.w3.org port 6665 #wcag-teamb

Agenda:
1. Sorcha's conformance proposals:


(Sorcha, the following items don't appear to have proposals; are these
the correct numbers?)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1014
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1049

Will need input from the group in order to complete issues:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1040
Will support material be provided for WCAG 2.0 for a non-technical
audience?

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1210

2. SC 1.4.5 (and 1.4.6) rewording:

Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology up to
200 per cent and down to 50% without loss of content or functionality.

This is good.

3. Level change proposals:

SC 2.4.3: move to level 1
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=838
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=839
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1052
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1289
Agree.

SC 2.4.4 : move to level 1
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=473
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=712
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=872
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=944
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1056

SC 2.4.5: keep at level 3
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1052
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1289
OK.
SC 2.4.6: move to level 1
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=628
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=942
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1053

SC 2.4.7: keep at level 3
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1054
OK.
SC 2.4.8: keep at level 3
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=712
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=838
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=839
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=944
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1056
OK

SC 3.2.5: keep at level 3
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1068
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1144
OK

4. Consider Principle 3 level change requests:
SC 3.1.3
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=945
I've heard people say that moving 3.1.3 to L2 would effectively bar
technical documentation and other professional communication at L2. I
don't entirely agree: WCAG 2.0 (for example) links to the glossary from
each instance of words and phrases used in an unusual or restricted way.
But I'm not sure we've caught every idiomatic expression. And content in
some fields would become extremely difficult to read if *all*
specialized vocabulary had to be defined either inline or via linking,
even when the terms are well known in their respective fields. Jargon is
typically a barrier for people who are not in the field where the jargon
is used-- e.g., the jargon of literary history  may be problematic for
chemical engineers but not for litearary historians.  And both chemical
engineers and literary historians are likely to provide definitions when
introducing new terms or re-defining existing ones-- at least when they
are writing for their professional peers.

So I think this one can stay at L3. But we need to be clear about the
rationale: placing the SC at L3 *does not* mean that the issue is not
important. We acknowledge that it is vital for some audiences and some
purposes. For example, specialized information intended for
non-specialist readers *should* follow this SC even if only A or AA
conformance is claimed (i.e., this would be an advisory technique in
such cases)

SC 3.1.4
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=1059
I could live with this at L2.

SC 3.1.5
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=569
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=887

The WG discussed this many times. All agree that writing as clearly and
simply as possible for the context (as per WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.1) is
highly desirable. But it is not testable in that form. The WG felt that
placing this SC at L2 imposed too heavy a burden on content developers.
The WG also discussed setting a lower threshhold, but this was the one
that achieved consensus at the face to face in Brussels (June 2005), a
decision that was ratified in two successive teleconferences. 

We might consider adding a sentence to the end of the Intent section in
Understanding GL 3.1, e.g., "Content should be written as clearly and
simply as possible." This could then be noted in the response to
reviewers.

The response to 569 should point the reviewer to Understnading GL 3.1--
the Intent section acknowledges some of his concerns. It should also
point to the new SC 1.4.5/1.4.6 about font scaling. And we might
consider adding an advisory technique here about using left-justified
text and/or avoiding text that's justified *both* left and right. There
could also be an advisory CSS technique about setting line-height to
improve legibility by opening up space between lines.
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 16:51:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:45 GMT