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: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:19:57 -0500 (EST)
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
cc: po@trace.wisc.edu, "'Al Gilman'" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-cg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903251116540.19535-100000@tux.w3.org>
I agree that we should be thinking in this way, and that this will be even
more important for XML. I also think that it much more important for XML
than it is for HTML that we make it extremely clear that kludges such as
using tables for layout are unacceptable, since they compromise the use of
well-designed language, which in the long run is extremely detrimental to

charles mccn

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:

  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

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 25 March 1999 11:20:08 UTC

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