W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001


From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:22:40 -0800
Message-ID: <03d201c0b2fd$244a8f30$6501a8c0@sttln1.wa.home.com>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I'm going to have to send my regrets, as well. I'm being called away at the
last minute.

On the agenda items:

>   1. Should 2.1 be split into two checkpoints?

MM I think they should. It's already clear that interaction behaviors and
navigation mechanisms are distinct enough to warrant different definitions
in the checkpoint itself. This one checkpoint also happens to cover
three-fourths of Guideline 13 from WCAG 1, so I think it should be split
rather than being one overburdened checkpoint.

>   2. Should checkpoint 2.4 be dropped on account of its being a user
>      agent requirement?

MM No. I don't think the user agents will be able to filter out, for
example, DHTML-induced flickering or blinking, since it could be coded n
number of ways by the page designer, and it's also necessary to ensure these
needs are delineated in technology documents other than (X)HTML.

However, a common usage which I think should be an exception case would be a
zero-second meta refresh used to redirect users to new sites. It's common
for site designers, particularly those who are hosted remotely and don't
administer their own machines, to need this functionality when the site is
moved. If they don't control the site, they wouldn't be able to do an HTTP
redirect, and I don't believe meta http-equiv="location" would work on all
browsers. I'd like to see this taken into consideration, either by making an
exception, or stating in XHTML techniques that these redirect hacks don't
convey any content to the user, and as such aren't subject to 2.4.

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 13:22:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC