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

RE: Proposal: Delete SC about contracted words

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:11:25 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183B0DF@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I agree with Yvette's proposal that we delete the "contracted words"
criterion.  Yvette, thanks for pointing out that we've already got it
well covered.

John


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Yvette P. Hoitink
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 4:59 am
To: 'WAI-GL'
Subject: Proposal: Delete SC about contracted words



Dear fellow group members,

Currently, we have guideline 3.1, level 3, SC 1:
The meaning of contracted words can be programmatically determined.

I think this is already covered by other guidelines and propose to
delete this SC. In level 2, SC 2 of the same guideline, we require: A.
The meanings and pronunciations of all words in the content can be
programmatically located.

Since contracted words are still words, this SC requires their meaning
can be programatically located, though there may be multiple meanings
for that word. 

In level 3, SC 2, of the same guideline, we require:
B. Where a word has multiple meanings and the intended meaning is not
the first in the associated dictionary(s), then additional markup or
another mechanism is provided for determining the correct meaning.

Combining A and B allows you to determine the meaning of contracted
words. Therefore, I propose to delete the success criteria about
contracted words. 

It may be that I'm unaware of an important accessibility barrier with
contracted words that I don't do justice with this proposal. If so,
please let me know what I'm missing. I have asked for examples that show
accessibility problems with contracted words but haven't seen or heard
any that clarified the specific accessibility problems with them for me.
I understand that obscure contractions may be hard to understand, but
that's true for difficult uncontracted words as well and is why we
require that you can programmatically locate the meaning of every word
at level 2. 

I prefer it if we formulate our SC in broad terms ("word with multiple
meanings") that are applicable to different linguistic features rather
than trying to provide a specific SC for every single linguistic feature
that might cause accessibility problems. 

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 09:11:44 GMT

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