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

More Issues #2

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:30:08 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <005001c1f231$4d6c7f80$066fa8c0@laptop600>
Some  new issues for the issues list - gathered from last cleanup




-          Definition of text equiv  on 1.1  

o        Says text-equivalent can contains Metadata.   Problem...

*      ISSUE If we say text-equiv can be in metadata, what guarantee is
there that the end user can get at it? This is another UAAG requirement,
but is there consistent support for rendering text-equivalents that are
stored in metadata?.



-          Definition of text equiv on 1.1  

o    Says text equiv can be easily converted to Braille or speech, or
displayed in a larger font or different colors.   

*          why do we say this as part of definition of text equiv

*          .  How do you allow or cause this 

.         "eg how do you allow user to change color of text in alt"

.         "what does easily convert to Braille "mean 

*          Does this one falls under user agent issues. At this stage,
there's nothing the author can do to allow all end users to adjust the
color of alt tags. This flexibility is covered in 2.3 of UAAG 1.0. 



Checkpoint 2.3  This one has always generated complaints because authors
don't know how to measure the flicker rates. Can we suggest how they
would know whether their flicker falls in this range?

1 - Would be great to have a tool or a website that could test for
flicker rate.

2 - what is flicker. "If I cant tell its flickering -- does it pass?"

3 - what if it is caused by slow computer. How will I know?


3.1   Issue: Provide an adequate definition of "data model" to cover
such phenomena as PDF logical structure, XML information sets that are
not represented in markup, etc.


Do we want to put in  as requirement or suggestion or technique?

 - The structure is manifest through presentations customized for more
than one type of presentation device, e.g., small/large screens,
printers, speech devices, handheld displays, etc. Style sheets,
final-form languages or other mechanisms providing control over
presentation are used to enhance the effectiveness with which the
structure is conveyed in presentations suited for different device


 (JW) Checkpoint 3.3: One problem with this checkpoint: how does it
apply if the web site is simply serving XML content and the interface is
constructed on the client-side? I suppose this could be asked of a
number of our checkpoints. Some would argue that rich XML will be
increasingly the form in which web content is delivered, with client
applications being responsible for the user interface.


Checkpoint 5.1   Issue: should there be a qualification or exception for
backward-compatibility? If so, under what circumstances should it apply?
Alternatively, if an implementer decides to use invalid markup for
backward-compatibility reasons, shouldn't they be "honest" and indicate
that they haven't satisfied this checkpoint?




-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto: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

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 19:30:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC