W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > October 2005

Fw: Your comments on my guide doc for GL 2.5 Level 2 SC 1

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:27:56 -0500
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF93743BFD.DCF08951-ON8625708F.00705FDD-8625708F.00706BC6@us.ibm.com>



----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 10/03/2005 03:27 PM -----
             Ben Caldwell                                                  
             isc.edu>                                                   To 
                                       Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM@IBMUS   
             10/03/2005 02:59                                           cc 
                                       Re: Your comments on my guide doc   
                                       for GL 2.5 Level 2 SC 1             

Hi Andi,

Thanks for the follow up. Some comments inline.


Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
> Ben,
> I have some questions about your comments on my guide doc from last week:
> <Ben>
> If I have a form where some fields are required, some aren't and some
> specific input/format requirements, it seems that situations A, B and C
> would all apply. Is this clear from the instructions?
> </Ben>
> The instructions say "Select the situation(s) below that match your
> content." Is it not clear from this statement that you should choose all
> situations that apply to your form?

[BBC] Sorry, I missed the "(s)". In the 1.1 example guide that I had
done, I had been thinking about the situations as though an author would
only be choosing one situation for each occurrence of non-text content.
So, when I read this draft originally, I was thinking along the same
lines -- that authors would choose either situation A, B or C rather
than multiple situations. The problem is that because we don't know the
scope of a claim (could be a single form field, an entire form or all
forms on a site), it's tricky to word these consistently. I think what
you've got is fine for now, just something we need to be sure is clear
in the instructions as we develop more of them.

> <Ben>
> Also, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between situation A and
> If any field is required, isn't it the case that situation B would also
> apply and a general text message could be provided that met this?
> </Ben>
> You're right. I originally had this as only one situtation but the
> was a little different and I thought I had a loophole for forms where
> fields are required. I have reworded this to one scenario as follows:
> Situation A: If a form contains fields for which information from the
> is mandatory:
> - Provide a text message when any of the mandatory information has not
> provided. The text message must either identify the mandatory fields or
> describe the method used to identify the mandatory fields.
> Do you think this adequately covers the case of a form that has either
> required fields or some required and some optional?

[BBC] Yes, I think this covers both scenarios. Looks great.

Thanks again,

Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 20:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:33 UTC