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

RE: QUESTIONS on resolutions stated in Minutes from 23 March teleconference.

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:22:39 -0600
Message-Id: <199903251518.JAA20689@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: <po@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Al Gilman'" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-cg@w3.org>
I don't think the guidelines should not be neutral on the issue of marking
certain elements for semantic function or relationships.  I think the
guidelines should indicate that this is an important way for improving
accessibility for some types of disabilities.  The details of how to
indicate relationships and function, I agree should be in a techniques
document.  I think semantic function and relationships will even become a
more important issue as XML usage  increases.  I think it would be a good
idea to get people thinking this way.

At 08:27 PM 3/24/99 -0600, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>Hi Jon,
>It is mentioned in the techniques doc, but not in the guidelines doc.  Only
>the Guidelines Doc are going to "recommendation". The techniques doc is an
>accompanying doc.  Hence the confusion with saying that it will be included
>in the techniques but will not be in the recommendation.
>This type of detail is not generally in the guidelines.. but is found in the
>techniques doc.
>-- ------------------------------
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Human Factors
>Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
>FAX 608/262-8848
>For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of Jon Gunderson
>Sent:	Wednesday, March 24, 1999 4:42 PM
>To:	Al Gilman; Ian Jacobs; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Cc:	w3c-wai-cg@w3.org
>Subject:	Re: QUESTIONS on resolutions stated in Minutes from 23 March
>If markup indicating element function is not in Web Content guidelines then
>I think it will be meaningless to define it in UAs.  Authors will not be
>looking in the UA guidelines on how to develop Web Content.
>>b) The proposed recommendation does not explicitly or implicitly say
>>anything about whether such a technique is appropriate or inappropriate.
>JRG: I don't understand this.  I would think that any information about
>grouping or function that would improve accessibility for people with
>disabilities would be appropriate.
>Why did the group make this decision?
>Issue 26 states that there was a resolution to include at least class="nav"
>in the techniques document.
>It seems to also be mentioned in issue 83
>>c) This class of technique is sufficiently controversial so that the chairs
>>did not want to include it in something bearing the PR declaration of
>>working group decision.
>If not class is there no other markup available?
>>d) There is motivation under various of the guidelines that _are_ in the
>>Proposed Recommendation for techniques which would employ such predefined
>JRG: This seems to contradict statement b in this e-mail.
>>e) The techniques are not viewed as frozen with the checkpoints.  It is
>>appropriate for the techniques to evolve and for novel techniques to be
>>initiated by the User Agent Working Group, particularly if it is believed
>>that User Agents and Authoring Tools can and will implement them.
>>Coordination with the authoring tools community is a key ingredient in a
>>successful proposal in this area.
>JRG: Is this a chicken or an egg problem?  I think this solution will make
>the process less efficient for the other groups, since now all of Web
>Content discussion on these issues will now be duplicated in both UA and AU.
>I thought these issues were going to resolved in GL, apparently I was wrong.
>Has anybody discussed the process for transfering these issues to the other
>groups for resolution?
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street
>Champaign, IL 61820
>Voice: 217-244-5870
>Fax: 217-333-0248
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
Received on Thursday, 25 March 1999 10:18:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:29 UTC