W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

More thoughts on 3.2.2

From: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus <Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:55:50 GMT
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE5A20CC6.2BEF3E40-ON85256754.004526D0@lotus.com>
     I know I was asked to give a problematic case for satisfying
checkpoint 3.2.2, but I'd like to offer an alternative wording.  If there's
still disagreement I'll provide the problem case.

     I've read the minutes (whoever wrote those up does a fabulous job, is
that you Charles?) and I think the spirit of the checkpoint is to allow the
author to identify all elements in the document that are editable or that
will affect the output created by the authoring tool.  Identification can
be done in a number of ways:  provide textual equivalents for all elements
(e.g. tags in HTML markup editor), allow enumeration of all elements in
accessible dialogues (Freelance Graphics, a presentation creation tool, has
an interface for cycling through all elements on the page with a choice to
select the item), provide meaningful names for elements with a "go to named
item" facility (spreadsheets have named cells and ranges), etc.

     In this light I believe 3.2.2, worded as is, is more of a technique
for satisfying the more specific need:

3.2.2:  (My proposed wording)  Allow the author to identify all document
elements that are editable or that affect output created by the authoring
tool.


     Does this capture the spirit of 3.2.2?

-- Bruce
Received on Thursday, 15 April 1999 10:39:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC