W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: Guidelines - some comments

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:24:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199810281624.LAA23984@access1.digex.net>
To: charlesn@srl.rmit.EDU.AU (Charles McCathieNevile)
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Do we need to talk about this in the telephone call?

From the meeting in Peterborough I got the idea that OBJECT is
processed in incompatible ways in existing browsers.  In ways so
there is no middle ground left, there is no "anybrowser" way to
write an OBJECT.

Al

to follow up on what Charles McCathieNevile said:
> From w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org  Wed Oct 28 11:10:20 1998
> Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:00:31 -0500 (EST)
> Resent-Message-Id: <199810281600.LAA24343@www19.w3.org>
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:56:47 +1100 (EST)
> From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@srl.rmit.EDU.AU>
> X-Sender: charlesn@sunrise
> To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981029023848.15253D-100000@sunrise>
> Subject: Guidelines - some comments
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> archive/latest/942
> X-Loop: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Sender: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> Precedence: list

> A.1 technique 7 - for OBJECT, use one of the many ways to provide 
> alternative content.
> 
> I think we should be pushing the use of the content of an OBJECT element, 
> as this provides content to any browser. In addition, the UA group 
> currently have a guideline which says that the content of an OBJECT must 
> be available to a user (whether or not the OBJECT is rendered) by some 
> means. The use of TITLE, etc, as a primiary means of conveying 
> alternatives requires more of the browsers, and makes life more 
> complicated, since the next thing that will be required in UA is an 
> algorithm for determining which things to make available how (there 
> really are only a limited number of simple techniques).
> 
> A.4 techniques 2 and 3 - providing audio description of video.
> 
> I think we need to make a stronger statement here about providing a text 
> equivalent (which should be a P1) and that text equivalent in audio 
> format, (which should be P2) by rearranging the priorities and the order 
> of the techniques.
> 
> A.10 Use accessible user interefaces for objects with their own interface
> 
> use SMIL for audio/video? (as another technique)
> 
> A.11 Input device independence
> 
> this would be where my recent barrow about event triggering goes I guess...
> 
> Section C - good design
> 
> Should the front-loading guideline refer back to the proper use of 
> headers etc in section A?
> 
> Charles McCathieNevile
> 
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 1998 11:24:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT