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

Guideline 2.1 Proposal

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:41:56 -0600
Message-Id: <200401301642.i0UGgjMM023848@jalopy.cae.wisc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I've attached an updated version of the guideline 2.1 proposal[1] submitted
by Gregg last December that reflects decisions made during subsequent
telecons and as a result of various comments and proposals on the list. 

Summary of changes and issues:

Revised definition of keyboard interface (per Jan. 15, 2004 telecon, based
on Michael's proposal [2])

FIXED: 623 - Reworded guideline text to, "Make all functionality operable
via a keyboard or a keyboard interface." (per Jan. 15, 2004 telecon.) 

FIXED: 410 - Confusion over what is meant by "minimum," which has been
removed in this proposal.

FIXED: 561 - This issue is a comment from the US Access board regarding the
question of how much keyboard access is the responsibility of the author vs.
the user agent. Hopefully, this proposal helps clarify where the
responsibility lies.

FIXED: 583 - Issue asks that we include an example of alternative coding
methods. Not clear exactly what this issue is asking for, but I believe this
is addressed by the inclusion of a definition of "event handler" and
examples of how one would comply with this guideline will be included at the
techniques level.

FIXED: 346 - Issue related to the definition of the term "operable." New
language in this proposal eliminates the need for defining this term.

FIXED: 625 - Added a definition of event handlers to clarify the level 2
success criteria. (per Jan. 15, 2004 telecon, based on David's proposal [3])

FIXED: 682 - Previous proposals required that "functionality or outcome that
can be expressed in words" be defined. This definition is no longer needed
in this proposal (per Jan. 15 2004 telecon)

OPEN: 681 - This issue asks whether Java applets (because they can be run on
platforms that support MouseKeys) would comply with this guideline. I'm not
sure that this proposal fully addresses this issue. Thoughts?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0588.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0052.html 
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0071.html 

--
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>   




Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 11:43:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:54 UTC