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

Re: Issues on WCAG 2.0 August 24th draft

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:29:58 -0000
Message-ID: <036801c137ba$5612c540$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Andi Snow-Weaver" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
"Andi Snow-Weaver" <andisnow@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I would like to log the following issues against the latest WCAG 2.0
draft:
>
> Checkpoint 1.1
>
> The success criteria indicates that interactive scripts need a
"functional
> equivalent such as a form". This should be removed from the success
> criteria. The definition of non-text content includes "applets and
> programmatic objects" and "scripts". These should be removed from the
> definition. Scripts, applets, and plug-ins can be accessible and if
they
> are accessible, you shouldn't be required to provide a text equivalent
to
> them.

They may be accessible, but surely only if there are suitable plug-ins,
script support and applets available for the UserAgent.  The only viable
UA may not have support for the plug-in in that situation surely textual
content is required?

> - Regarding Checkpoint 2.5 success criteria. Suggest "if generic event
> handlers are not available, provide at least two device-specific event
> handlers. If the action or result of the action can be discerned
textually,
> one of the device-specific event handlers must be encoding."

You state in your 4.1 comments, that UA's have a role to play, surely
1.2 Activate event handlers in the UA guidelines
<URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010731/guidelines.html >
make this redundant for the same reasons, the device specific events
should be being made accessible by the UA.

Jim.
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 12:34:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:12 GMT