W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Some thoughts about combining 1.3.1 and 1.3.4

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:46:10 -0600
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF974BD4A0.27B70176-ON8625723A.006F9255-8625723A.0072170D@us.ibm.com>

I've looked at Becky's proposal and have the following comments:

With regard to moving G117 to 1.3.1 as a sufficient technqiue, I don't
think this would meet the SC as currently worded which requires the
information and relationships can be programmatically determined.

With regard to what to do about H49, here are some HTML scenarios
(situations?) to consider....

- if you use <em> or <strong> on text instead of a valid HTML semantic
element (headings, row or column headers, anything else?), that should be a
- if you just want to emphasize the text, then <em> or <strong> are
sufficient to convey what you meant. I use this sometimes just to make
certain words stand out. If the screen reader modifies the voice when
encountering emphasized words, then this seems equivalent to me.
- if you are using <em> or <strong> to convey some context sensitive
meaning (attendees in bold were late to the meeting, italicized items are
back ordered, bold form fields are in error, etc.), that's when <em> and
<strong> are not sufficient and you have to also have some kind of
duplicate text information.

With regard to G115 containing HTML examples, I really don't think it is
possible to discuss a technique about using semantic markup without having
technology specific examples. Other than the plain text techniques, I know
of no way to make something programmatically determinable, without using a
particular technology. I suggest we remove G115. Everything that is
described in G115 is covered by an HTML technique isn't it?

F2 should be a failure for 1.3.1.

I think 1.3.1 needs some more in the benefits section. It only talks about
presenting information differently. It doesn't address the point that
variations can be used to present context sensitive information.

I don't even see how the example in 1.3.4 fits the current SC. It looks a
typo scenario to me. We don't have a SC that says you can't have typos.

Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 20:46:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:35 UTC