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

RE: Trying to better explain concern about mappingtechnology-specifics to success criteria

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 06:42:49 +0200
To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <008501c22bba$13068120$3100000a@lisa>


I think that you are on to a good thing Joe,  but I think your examples are
not quite right. The place were i feel there is an over dependence on what
is "commonly used" is in placement of success criteria. The priority
leveling of success criteria are dependent on the extent which a requirement
is already commonly implemented. In other words, if a requirement is not
already widely implemented it will be lower priority. The wording for the
prioritization criteria was sufficiently ambiguous to slip past me. But this
criteria seem to have consciences. (mine exclude)

On to the main.....inline comments to Joe's points

>1. any information that is conveyed through presentation formatting
>is also provided in either text or structure.

	Maybe someone could explain what that bit means.

[Lisa] Ok - there is always a lot of content that is implied in the
presentation. When that content is definitive, make sure it is also conveyed
in structure or text.
So if you have an e-commerce site that is having a sale. and the words
"SALE" and any items on sale are all in green. Make sure that there is
another way to know what items are on sale besides the green.


[Lisa] even if  someone reads the requirement and as a result raps
<p><big><bold><font color="red"> in heading tags, that is a lot better then
just having the <p><big><bold>. A user agent can know what to do with a
header, and that information - that this is a heading - has been preserved.


	"Not commonly used" is irrelevant. If it's in the spec, it
must be supported. "Not commonly... supported"? At least you're being
honest. You're saying, in effect, "Jaws for Windows can't handle it,
so let's pretend it doesn't matter." (That's merely to draw one
example.)
....
	Let me add that this habit of being influenced by current
adaptive technology (invariably meaning a screen reader, invariably
meaning Jaws for Windows) leads to absurd advice that gets
accessibility advocates laughed out of the room

[lisa]I agree on this one -  In principle - I could not agree more
but your examples of when we use it is a bit off




Jaws is not the only reason headings are - important.
 I am making some XSL for cognitive disabilities and i relay on the use of
heading for outlining the text. In the same way abridged text may leave in
the links.
It is not common. It may yet become so, but it is a help for accessibility.

also links are often separated by white spaces or the visual lay out of the
page so links do not make any since when they are read. For example a table
layout which has lots of "more" links on one cell , so they are layout next
to the content they are affiliated to.

They will read "more, more, more, more"





Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/02

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/02
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2002 23:49:11 GMT

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