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: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:55:36 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0702131155wf6d8949o57206851ed8d4fd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>

Thanks, John. I've generated proposals based on your comments.

Loretta

On 2/13/07, Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 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 19:55:55 GMT

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