W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Agenda April 29th: Level 1 Success Criteria

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:59:25 -0400
Message-ID: <024501c42e02$f2570ce0$9d01a8c0@deque.local>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
1. That is the issue I have been raising on the list and in last week's call : the main distinction between level 1 and 2 is freedom of content presentation. At least this was the assumption till the March 11 draft. This was the basis for categorizing criteria as level 1 and 2. Now the   words:
"    2. Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup,...", require us to reconsider the classification. 
And should we throw  the concept of "freedom of content     presentation" out of the window? Ref: mails from John and Charles.
2. And is use of mark-up etc the only way of providing "minimum accessibility"? Consider a link to an audio presentation. The author might  present the text transcript on the same page itself. This I suppose  is "direct accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or assistive technology", and  is hence a level 2 resolution of the problem. So complying with a level 2 criterion can also ensure minimum accessibility- a feature of level  1 at present. In other words minimum accessibility can be provided by a level 1 or 2 criteria, right?   
Using a title attribute on an image is  markup and when used along with alt enhances accessibility. It depends on user agent and AT. So it is a level 1 criteria that is  doing the  enhancement. Right?
Looks like we  still have some way to go!
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer 
Deque Systems,11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 
4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105 
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Fax: 703-225-0387
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2004 11:58:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT