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

Re: Comments on 13 April AU Guidelines.

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904201624050.10829-100000@tux.w3.org>
Ian, thanks for your comments. I have answered most of them, many with a
suggestion about how to best address your concern. Look for IJ: and CMN:

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Here are some comments on the 13 April Draft

  1) From 1.2:
    "To <dfn>conform to (or comply to) the
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines</dfn> or the <dfn>User Agent
    Accessibility Guidelines</dfn>, as used in this document, means that
    the priority for implementing each checkpoint has the same level as it
    does in the relevant Accessibility Guidelines."
    I'm not sure what you mean by "conform to...as used in this document".
    How can you redefine conformance to one of those specs? This needs
    to be made clearer.
There is a formal specification of how to make a statement of compliance
in the WCAG. We should refer to it in the manner specified in that
  2) To line up with the WCGL, use the term "equivalent content"
     instead of "alternative content". While Eric Hansen does 
     not like "equivalent alternative" since "alternative" is built-in
     to the definition of "equivalent" for him, I see no problem
     in saying "equivalent alternative" (nor does Gregg).
Seems a fine idea to me
  3) I don't understand the English of 2.3.4
Parhaps we should make this a couple of sentences (or even three)
  4) Technique 6 of 2.4.2: One can use "A" elements instead of "AREA"
     inside a MAP element in HTML 4.0.
Yes, but in that case the example is not applicable. However it may be
worth usng block level MAP content as an example of a readily available
alternative which is more accessible.
  5) Technique 1 of 2.6.2 is not clear to me. I think it means
     that alert levels should mirror WCGL priority levels, but I'm not
  6) I'd remove "to avoid frustration from Techniques 2 of 2.6.2.
     Also, maybe change "set the warning" to "set the alert level'.
  7) Techniques 4 of 2.6.2 sounds like a checkpoint to me (it's
     different than 2.6.2 itself, but sounds similar).
The techniue is the same as the checkpoint, and the wording is better.
  8) I don't agree with 2.7.4, technique 3 as worded. I think
     it's important to emphasize that something is deprecated and
     also to provide examples of how to do it right. I don't
     agree with "rather than".
I don't understand what you are saying. If you are referring to the first
technique of 2.7.4, you will notice that it only discusses elements which
are not deprecated.
  9) In checkpoint 3.4.1, what does "property of an element" mean?
It is defined in the glossary. Should we put in cross-reference links?
  10) In checkpoint 3.4.2, what does "structured tree file" mean?
I think it means a text representation of a structured tree. I am not sure
either - somebody want to write a clearer definition?  

Charles McCN
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 1999 16:36:06 UTC

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