Re: Normative issue summary for 2.1

Hi Michael,

Sorry for the delay. Here is my opinion for 2.1 issues. I agree with all
of your proposals. I have my comment for 1804, but it is not so critical.


On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:21:17 -0500
"Michael Cooper" <michaelc@watchfire.com> wrote:

> 561. Divvying up responsibility for keyboard access
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=561>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE

Agree.

> 941. Format notes in Level 1 SC as a list
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=941>
> 
> Proposal: LEAVE OPEN and address when formatting of guidelines is
> cleaned up.

Agree.

> 986. prefer 1.0 approach: "device-independence" is more strict
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=986>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE with no action. I think this might draw concern but do
> not have a proposal to make that I think would draw less concern.

Agree.

> 1015. If the browser doesn't support tabbing, what is the author to do?
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1015>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE with the above rationale.

Agree.

> 1378. Difference between 'operable' and 'is designed to be operated'
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1378>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE with the above rationale and reword 2.1.2 as suggested
> by Becky: "All functionality of the content is operable through a
> keyboard interface."

Agree.

> 1621. 2.1 L3 SC1 fold into 2.1 L1 SC1
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1621>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE with no action.

Agree.

> 1700. Usability issues in keyboard access
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1700>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE with no action.

Agree.

> 1738. GL 2.1 Guideline should promote device independence
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1738>
> 
> Proposal: MARK AS DUPLICATE of issue 986 (see above) and handle in that
> context.

Agree.

> 1740. GL 2.1 L3 SC 1 should be Level 2
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1740>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE with no action.

Agree.

> 1804. SC 2.2.1 hard to understand
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1804>
> 
> Proposal: KEEP OPEN and ask reviewer to suggest wording.

This phrase is difficult for me to translate into understandable Japanese.
It'll be more helpful for the readers to have a definition of "where the
task requires analog, time-dependent input" in "Key Terms" section of
"How to Meet Success Criterion 2.1.1"(Understanding WCAG 2.0). Though it
is described in "Intent of this Success Criterion".

> 1829. Problems with access keys
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1829>
> 
> Proposal: RECATEGORIZE issue as non-normative. Suggest when / if we ever
> get to it in its new category, advisory information be added to the
> appropriate technique.

Agree.

> 1836. GL 2.1: use "textual interface" rather than "keyboard interface"
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1836>
> 
> Proposal: KEEP OPEN and ask reviewer for substantiation. If we do not
> receive it in an appropriate amount of time, CLOSE issue with no action,
> otherwise consider the merits at that time. 

Agree.

> 1837. SC 2.1.1: Issues with time-dependency aspects and exception
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1837>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE this issue with no action.

Agree.

> 1838. SC 2.1.1, Benefits in Understanding WCAG
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1838>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE this issue, proposing a placeholder optional technique
> for the first suggestion, and adding a benefit for the second
> suggestion.

Agree.

> 1873. MouseKeys note
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1873>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE issue, making above change to the note.

Agree.

> 1874. Add "non time-dependent manner" to 2.1.2
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1874>
> 
> Proposal: CLOSE this issue, adding "...in a non time-dependent
> manner..." to 2.1.2.

Agree.


- Makoto

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 22:29:07 UTC