W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > October 2012

Re: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of “objects of assessment”

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:27:29 -0500
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <35399F69-9D50-4BB9-9249-F2E3125C14BB@trace.wisc.edu>


On Oct 4, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:

> I remain concerned with how things would sort out in practice for our 4 unresolved SCs, particularly for software.  I want to review some of our examples with this approach, and see how that feels (e.g. Bypass Blocks - what is "repeated content" in software that would be bypassed? 

The examples would be a good way to examine this. 

> What constitutes a software title that describes the topic or purpose?

The examples of course would not be any good for this  -- since the object of eval is the software -- not subcomponents of it.   But your following examples are good things to test the concept. 

>  Is "Skype" or "Pidgin"  "Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro" or "NetBeans IDE 7.0" a title for software that sufficiently "describes the topic or purpose"?

Yes - the name of an application has always been accepted as a suitable description of it.  Otherwise links would all fail as just one example.  So there is no reason it should not be here. 

> (of four random apps on my computer at the moment - which respectively do IM and audio and video conferencing, IM via a bunch of different protocols than Skype, read & author PDF documents, and a developer tool for creating any of a huge variety of types of programs)? ).




Thanks 

G




Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 05:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:47 UTC