W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

comment on tech for WCAG 1.0 (Aug 8)

From: Masafumi NAKANE <max@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:23:48 +0900
Message-ID: <871yzqiugb.wl@turkey.aslm.rim.or.jp>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi,

Here's some comment on the Aug 8 version of the Techniques for the
WCAG 1.0 followed by some comment on HTML Techniques.

Simple Typo

In 5.8:

> 1. Configure the server to use the appropriate HTTP status code
>       (301). Using HTTP headers is preferable because it reduces
>       Internet traffic and download times, it may by applied to non-HTML

it may by applied to -> it may be applied to.

In 5.11 right before 5.11.1:

The reference to "Techniques for the Web Content Accessibility
Guideliens 1.0" should be a reference to the WCAG. (The HREF is
correct, though.)

Other Comments

In 5.1:

> For instance, many content developers consider that a horizontal rule
> (the HR element) communicates a structural division.

In parenthesis, wouldn't it be better to say "the HR element of HTML"
instead, since this document is supposed to be technology independent?
(Well, of course, it's obvious, though.)

In 5.3:

> 1. Allow users to navigate to a separate page that is accessible and
> maintained with the same frequency as the inaccessible original page.

Would it not be necessary to also emphasize that the alternative pages
must provide equivalent information as inaccessible original pages?

Also in this section, there is an example of the link element usage.
Is there any reason why this is in this document instead of in the
HTML techniques?

In 5.4:

In the paragraph about keyboard shortcuts, I think something must be
said to encourage the content developers to provide information of the
key bindings available.

In 5.5:

> Users with spelling disabilities and users unfamiliar with the
> language of your site will have a difficult time finding what they
> need if the search requires perfect spelling. Search engines might
> include a spell checker, offer "best guess" alternatives,
> query-by-example searches, similarity searches, etc.

Use of the word "spell" gives an impression this document is only for
English and European languages.  I can't come up with a good wording,
but a phrase like "typing word" or something should be used instead.
("perfect spelling" could be replaced with "exact match", but I don't
know what would be good for other occurrence of the word.)

In 5.6.1:

Enumerated item 5. is very English specific.  If the examples of "try"
and "endeavor" and "begin" and "commence" are dropped, this should be
okay, though.

The item 6. seems to be English (and maybe other European languages as
well) specific.

The Gunning-Fog is also language specific.  At least it should be
stated that this is just for certain language.

Since this document will be read by international audience, it should
be either that we provide examples of multiple language, or that we
should try to be language-neutral.

In 5.7:

It is not clear what the three enumerated items mean, i.e., should
developer try these three steps in order? or should one of the three
should be done?

Personally, 3. (provide explicit links) is essential regardless of
whether the content negotiation mechanism is available.  And
2. (identify the language, etc. of the linked resource) should be done
for links created following 3.

I think the current wording seem unclear about this.

In 5.11.3:

In enumerated item 4., JAWS, WinVision, PwWebspeak, Homepage Reader
are mentioned as examples of relivant technologies.  Since available
products differ depending on the primary language of the document, and
also, usable with these products doesn't necessarily mean that the
page will be accessible with other products (especially with products
for other languages than English), I think we should either not
mention these products or provide an external resource that gives
comprehensive list of relivant products.

In 5.11.4:

Again, I don't think the word "spelling" is good.  However, the
concept presented here is good across different languages, the word
just needs to be replaced with another word that can be applied to
writing in general.

Throughout the Document:

The words "movie" and "video" are used throughout the document.  It
seems to me that they are interchangeable.  But if they have different
meanings, they should be listed in the glossary.  Otherwise, it's
probably better to stop using two different words for one thing.


For HTML Techniques:

Some of depricated examples don't end with "end example."

There are references to HTML 4.01 and hTML 4.0 where all should
probably be references to 4.01.

In 2.1:

> 2. Similarly, speech synthesizers that "speak" multiple languages will
> ....
> Thus, the French word for car, "voiture" would be pronounced "voter."

Please say that this is an example with synthesizer that uses English
as its primary language.

In 3.4:

Some auditory rendering tools for [La]TeX are mentioned, but this
again is for English environment.  Please state that these work
primarily in English environment.

In 6.1:

> Note that for the latter case (and other format- or language-specific
> documents), content developers are encouraged to use content
> negotiation instead, so that users who prefer text versions will have
> them served automatically.

I do not think the content negotiation should be used *instead*.
Content negotiation should be used along with explicit links to
alternative format/language version.

In 6.3:

> HTML 4 also allows content developers to specify keyboard shortcuts in
> documents via the "tabindex" attribute.

Shouldn't this be accesskey instead of tabindex?

> Refer to the example in the previous section for an example of
> "tabindex."

Which example in which section is this about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cheers,
Max
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2000 08:25:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT