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

RE: Issue 556 and 669

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 17:08:26 -0500
Message-Id: <200405132210.i4DMAIML018639@jalopy.cae.wisc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>

Finishing some thoughts from the call today...

I like the proposal to move emphasis into a separate criterion.

Questions:

> 1. "Structures and relationships of the content can be derived
> programmatically (for example, through a markup or data model)"

Tom, are you proposing that we remove the references to hierarchical and
non-hierarchical relationships? I think the specific mention of paragraphs,
lists, headings, tables, etc. is important to understanding this guideline and
helpful to those who come to the guidelines searching for answers to questions
like "how do I make tables accessible". 

> 2. "Differentiation of content to imply additional meaning or stress, such as
> the types of emphasis commonly denoted by bold or italics, can be derived
> programmatically."

Is there a better word than "stress"?

Perhaps "... imply additional meaning, emphasis or distinction, such as ..."

With regard to the questions raised about whether these criteria imply that the
archives of this list would not be accessible, it may be that this is answered
through questions about scoping and whether technologies have been used
according to specification (guideline 4.1). 

For scoping, one could claim that the W3C list archives interface meets WCAG 2.0
level one, but that the scope of the claim does not include the content that it
receives/processes from external sources (i.e. plain text emails). 

For the according to spec. question, there is no spec that I know of by which
one might mark up structure using plain text. So, plain text content (like the
emails submitted to the W3C archives or the comments we've been collecting via
form submissions in WCAG Bugzilla) would be excepted. However, in the case of
content written in (X)HTML, not using a header tag to mark a header would fail
the requirements of 4.1. 

-Ben
Received on Thursday, 13 May 2004 18:12:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT