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

RE: Issue 556 and 669

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:23:22 +1000
Message-ID: <16548.26074.178033.905029@jdc.local>
To: <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>

Ben Caldwell writes:
 > 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". 

I agree, but a more representative list of examples would be useful:
the hierarchy of options in a user interface, the spatial organization
and structure of a vector graphic (this wording is intended to address
the complaint that such an example might imply that raster-based
images can't be used), etc.
 > > 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). 
I agree with this analysis. The HTML portions of the list archive do
meet structural requirements, but the aggregated content does not,
leaving aside HTML e-mail attachments and similar exceptions.

In fact, the issue extends far beyond guideline 1.3, which is why I do
not think 1.3 should be changed in response to such examples. I can
for instance attach image files, without any text equivalents, to my
e-mail message and post it to a mailing list, whereupon the images
will be archived and guideline 1.1 violated.
Received on Friday, 14 May 2004 02:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC