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

RE: Checkpoint 1.1 - handling the rest of the comments

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:04:19 -0500
To: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <000c01c29bf2$0d5488f0$b409960a@TOSHIBATABLET>
Thanks Wendy


A couple comments / questions 

They are below marked with GV:




 -- ------------------------------ 

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.

Director - Trace R & D Center 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 




Comment #3

Mark Schult, 21 Oct 2002 [10]

Proposes to reprioritize the current items so that level 3 has



Proposal #3

No change to the checkpoint.

Rationale: The levels are clearly defined [10.5].  Balancing the load 

between levels is not reason enough for us to change the priority.  At

point, it is Ok if there are not criteria at the 2nd and 3rd level 

(although we received several comments about the priority structure - a 

separate issue).


GV:  Good. But we need to be sure it is clear that this will be done
"automatically" at the users end - and is not a responsibility of the
author.  (Translating into sign language)




Comment #5

Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [11]

"Examples" #4: Change "described in words" to "read"


Proposal #5

Label the examples consistently throughout the guidelines.


Current wording:

Example 1: providing a short label for a button/link.

Example 2: providing a short label and a longer explanation of a data

Example 3: providing a short label and a longer explanation of an

Example 4: providing a short label and a transcript for an audio file

can be described in words.

Example 5: providing a label for content that cannot be described in


Proposed wording:

Example 1: an image used as a button.

Example 2: a data chart.

Example 3: an animation.

Example 4: an audio file of a speech.

Example 5: an audio file of a symphony.


Rationale:  Primarily, this is a matter of style. It also improves the 

consistency with the rest of the guidelines.  I prefer short labels 

followed by detailed explanation to help a reader quickly skim for an 

example that meets their needs.



GV:   I like the short titles- but I think they should be followed with
what you should do about them.   One of the purposes of the old examples
was to show that some types of information needed more text as an
alternative than did others.  (Maybe that is what you intended anyway)




Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 19:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:25 UTC