W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: new open issues

From: Lee Roberts <uce@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:07:24 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBJHFEOLAGEICMIMBPEEKDCEAA.uce@roserockdesign.com>
OPEN ISSUE:   WCAG 1 TO WCAG 2

I'm curious, should we rely upon the Passive
sentence structure to cover the conversion from
WCAG1 to WCAG2?  Correct me if I'm wrong, this
issue will be a part of the finished document.  As
such passive sentence structure would indicate
that our work is not yet done even though we have
submitted and published a completed work.

My recommendation would be: "The conversion from
WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 created a need to map out the
differences and provide an easy path to follow.
The WCAG group realized the importance of easy
transition and worked extremely hard to make it
easy for developers and policy makers to
understand."


OPEN ISSUE:     Definition of SITE

I recommend that we define a site as, "A body of
elements within a domain claiming conformance to
WCAG2."
If we go with the current suggested definition we
will run into the area that one person or group
has claimed conformance while hosting their site
on one of they many hosting services out there
that prevents them from maintaining full control
over their site.  Such a site would be one on
Geocities, Tripod, Homestead, Free Yellow, etc.
They may be able to attempt a claim at
conformance, but the hosting service would quickly
remove that possibility.

Additionally, a news article developed by the WAI
aware author may meet the current suggested
definition, while the page the information is
provided on may not.  Who wins at that point?  Is
the content going to win because the author met
the WCAG requirements or does the page cause
everything to lose?  Based upon a semantic view
the content would win its argument of compliance,
but the page would still be unusable.
Suggested definition
For the purposes of these guidelines, a site is
that body of web content which the conformance
claim encompasses.

--------------------
For the perceivable future I would recommend that
we use perceivable simply because it breaks down
to a word people can understand.  While it may be
perceptible for people to generate a perception of
what we are talking about it is more plausible to
perceive that people will understand the word
perceivable.

The remainder fo the words are very acceptable.

OPEN ISSUE  - 5 MAGIC WORDS
PERCEIVABLE / PERCEPTIBLE
OPERABLE
NAVIGABLE
UNDERSTANDABLE
DURABLE

Thanks,
Lee Roberts
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 13:15:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT