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

RE: Action item: new wording for Checkpoint 5.2 minimum success criterion #1

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 02:12:06 -0700
To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <008d01c254bc$5218b150$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
Action item: new wording for Checkpoint 5.2 minimum success criterion #1Can
you clarify two points for me,

1, does this mean that according to WCAG 2 you can use JavaScript if it is
documented?

2, what about a page like http://space.ort.org.il/nagish/ were you have
framesets embedded in  framesets and the second set of framesets are written
by a JavaScript - how can the assistive technologies get to the titles?

a code snippet follows:

if ( RestoreTopFrame == 1 )
document.write('<frameset rows="21,*" name="MainFrame" border="0">')
else
document.write('<frameset rows="91,*" name="MainFrame"  border="0">')
document.write('<frame class="clsFrameTitle" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" id="idTopBar" name="TopBar"
src="frame_title.asp?sp_c=424450463" frameborder="0" scrolling="NO"
noresize>')

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

http://www.UBaccess.com

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of john_slatin
  Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:03 AM
  To: WCAG List
  Subject: Action item: new wording for Checkpoint 5.2 minimum success crite
rion #1


  Current wording for Checkpoint 5.2, Success criterion #1, minimum level:

    1.      a list of technologies and features, support for which is
required in order for the content to be operable, has been determined and is
documented in metadata and / or a policy statement associated with the
content.

  Proposed new wording
  1. A list of the technologies and features required to operate the content
is associated with the content through metadata and/or a policy statement.

  -- Explanation:
  I've tried to make this criterion more understandable by (a) straightening
out the syntax and (b) shortening the sentence.  I deleted the phrase "has
determined and is" on the grounds that the list of required technologies and
features can't be provided until someone has determined what those
requirements are.

  What important nuances have I missed?

  John



  John Slatin, Ph.D.
  Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
  University of Texas at Austin
  FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
  Austin, TX 78712
  ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
  email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
  web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 04:14:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT