W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

dynamic content

From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:36:45 -0600
Message-Id: <199901261740.LAA13088@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Per the telecon last week, I am rewriting the checkpoints that relate to
frames (A.9.1 and A.9.2) so that they are more generic.  We decided that
frames are "containers with dynamic content."  As I am rewriting this, I
realized that 
a.  that sounds way too "techno-babble-ish"  <grin> and 
b.  that we might be able to synthesize a more generic "truth" from all of
this.  

It seems that several of the checkpoints in A.9 (Ensure that pages using
newer technologies will transform gracefully into an accessible form if the
technology is not supported or is turned off.) boil down to the following
checkpoints:

1.  Provide a fallback page, mechanism, or other form of presentation for
dynamic content
(HTML examples:  NOFRAMES at the end of each frameset, NOSCRIPT
for every script, server-side scripts instead of client-side). [Priority 1]
(combines A.9.1, A.9.3, A.9.6)

2.   Ensure that descriptions of dynamic content are updated with changes
in content. [Priority 1] (replaces A.9.2)

3.  A.9.4, and A.9.5 as is. 

I also propose that we make the phrase "applets and programmatic objects"
more general by using "dynamic objects."

However, audio and video are dynamic objects...I suggest leaving related
guidelines and checkpoints (A.3 and A.4) as is, but pointing to them from a
note at the end of this guideline...unless someone has a better idea...?

thoughts?
--wendy
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 1999 12:40:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT