W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: 6.4 and accessibility

From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:59:23 -0400
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>,Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9D8F648E.19C4EDFA-ON85257435.00733567-85257435.00734CEC@LocalDomain>
For the non visual rephrasing, nobody seems to mind. Thomas and Anil, can 
you make it so? 

And nobody can explain the header recommendations? So should we remove 
them? 




From:
Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM
To:
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Date:
03/28/2008 05:34 PM
Subject:
6.4 and accessibility


It seems possible to rephrase this part of 6.4.4 to not be just visual:

"For visual user agents, these interactions MUST be presented in a way 
that makes it impossible for the user to view or interact with the 
destination web site that caused the danger situation to occur."

could instead be:
These interactions MUST be presented in a way that makes it impossible for 
the user go to or interact with the destination web site that caused the 
danger situation to occur.

For the header recommendations, I could use a bit more context (I'm only 
about two pages into Serge et al's paper; I'm hoping to finish it on the 
trip out to the RSA conference): 

"For user agents with a visual user interface, headings of these warnings 
MUST include words meaning "caution" or "warning". The headings of these 
warnings MUST be the locus of attention."

Why the headings? Is it _just_ about locus of attention? Are there other 
things about the headings that make them special?
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 21:00:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 April 2008 21:00:10 GMT