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

Plane Comments

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:33:55 +0100
Message-Id: <199902251333.OAA23324@www47.inria.fr>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

8 hours of plane = more comments to swallow by the editors...

My most serious comment is still about the structural change and I'd
like to talk about it on today's call.

Most things here are in the range of clarification of existing text,
with a couple of new proposal on the content itself that we can rasie
on today's call as well (like new checkpoint on metadata).

>  Accessibility does not mean minimal page design, it means thoughtful

Also mention "nor duplicate page design"

>   as of "today." Therefore, the Techniques for Web Content Accessibility
>   Guidelines document links to information about feature support of

Mention that the Techniques doc "is an evolving" document.

          
>   HTML as a gzip'ed tar file:
>   HTML as a zip file (this is a '.zip' file not an '.exe'):

mention a tar/zip of what (the HTML + attached pieces)

>   A PDF file:

I know this is not specific to WAI GL I always wonder the value of
providing a proprietary format here. Why not Word then (no!)

>  A.1 Provide alternative text for all images, applets, and image maps. ...

OK to cut the line to fit but let's try to keep it sensical.
This one is fine, but A.5 and A.12 are weird

>  A.12 Use features that enable activation of page elements via input ...

It would be unfortunate it it meant rewording the guidelines though
(it's a presentation issue), but I don't have a good solution.

>  Priorities

Add here something explaining what checkpoint/guidelines/techniques are.
(I know the intro is being reworked completely)

>  If the visual presentation is associated with an auditory presentation
>  (e.g., for a movie), synchronize the audio version of the descriptions
> ..
>  Otherwise, if actions, body language, or other visual

I think it should be reserved: first the rationale, then the details.
Same issue with A.3 that starts with an "If"

    3. For scripts that present critical information or functions,

Use "important", the defined term, not critical (or add critical in
the index definition)

>   This is particularly important for objects that contain text but does
>   not apply to instant redirection. Some people with cognitive

Add "instant redirection done by the server"

>  A.11 Ensure that embedded custom user interfaces are directly accessible.
> 
>   The accessibility of objects with their own interface is independent

Somehow I feel this is not true. I'd rather not affirm that.

>   1. Where possible, make programmatic elements, such as scripts and
>      applets, directly accessible. (See also A.9). [Priority 1] if

I would actually favor moving this one in A.9 and removing A.11
altogether. 

    1. For image maps, provide alternative text for links. (See also A.1)

This is really a plain dup of A.1.1. Although I see the need for
repeating A.1.1. for animated gif, I think here it looks really like a 
bug.

>  Users not operating in a graphical environment are
>  disoriented by being transferred to a new window without warning.

This is poorly phrased. To me, not operating in a graphical
environment means you don't have window, so popup is not an issue. I
guess the word operating is the problem. Maybe "User not using the
graphical features of the desktop are disoriented..."
  
>    you must provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C
>    technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information, and is
>    updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]

I think it's the only case where "must" is used and emphased in a
checkpoint. Since it's a P1, it's not needed.
Use Active form isntead: Provide...
I realize A.14.4 has the same problem (but it's not in <strong>)

>    4. Indicate what type of resource you are linking to , especially
>       when linking to resources that are not W3C technologies, For

I'm not really happy with this one. I like it to be a P2 for things
like PDF, Word.

> A page that is too elaborate may deter a larger audience than you
> might expect. 

I don't understand this sentence.

>  To decrease the amount of sifting readers perform to find important

"sifting" is not in my vocabulary, so I suggest using a more common
word (I always use myself as a criteria for english language
acessibility :-)

> B.2 Checkpoints:

Need a new one for "use Metadata".
  Use metadata (e.g. RDF) to add semantics information to your page
 (such as author, kind of content, etc

And a technique pointing to w3.org/Metadata.

>   4. Offer a site map. [Priority 3]
>   6. Offer different types of searches for different skill levels and
>      preferences. [Priority 3]

I got feedback from people that these two should be P2.

>   8. Facilitate off-line browsing by creating a single downloadable

How is this accessibility related ? Suggest dropping.

>   10. Provide a link at the beginning of a group of related links to
>       bypass the group. [Priority 3]
 
Not sure what this one mean. Need to be more detailed. Maybe only a
technique then ? 
      
> D. Appendix - Definitions

New definition entries for
 PDA
 spacers
 client-side map
 d-link
 navbar
 presentational markup
 place-holding
 site map

>  Braille
>         Accessible The word "Accessible" in braille.

In the graphics, I would indicate visually the unraised dots (with
empty little circle), so that people understand the notion of 6 dots matrix
more easily.
Received on Thursday, 25 February 1999 08:34:00 GMT

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