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

RE: 2.1 level 3 needs rewording

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 00:16:10 -0500
To: "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000016573485@spamarrest.com>

Hi Andi,

That SC is a subset of the guideline.  Thus the words do not need to be the
same.  

If you do switch 'application' with 'user interface' as you suggest then I'm
not sure you end up with items in that list that make a lot of sense.  Sort
of but.....  

Substitute 'user interface' into all of the items in the list (shown below )
and see what I mean. 

These really were meant to apply to applications - not user interface
elements that are in HTML for example.



If the application renders visual text, it should conform to the VisualText
checkpoints.

If the application renders images, it should conform to the Image
checkpoints.

If the application renders animations, it should conform to the Animation
checkpoints.

If the application renders video, it should conform to the Video
checkpoints.

If the application renders audio, it should conform to the Audio
checkpoints.

If the application performs its own event handling, it should conform to the
Events checkpoints.

If the application implements a selection mechanism, it should conform to
the Selection checkpoints.

The application should support keyboard access per UAAG 1.0 checkpoints 1.1
and 6.7.

If the application implements voice or pointer input, it should conform to
the Input Modality checkpoints


If you are talking about HTML elements - there is no way that the user can
conform to the USER AGENT guidelines (which is what this is requesting)
without have the user agent in hand - which the author doesn't.  but if they
create an application - then they would -- and they should follow these.

Make sense?


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Andi Snow-Weaver
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:55 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 2.1 level 3 needs rewording






We need to distinguish between 2.1 and 4.2. 4.2 says "Ensure that user
interfaces are accessible or provide an accessible alternative" and has as
a Level 1 success criteria

"The application should support keyboard access per UAAG 1.0 checkpoints
1.1 and 6.7."

As an aside, the 4.2 success criteria should be changed from "application"
to "user interface" to match the guideline. If it then reads,

"The user interface should support keyboard access per UAAG 1.0 checkpoints
1.1 and 6.7"

then what is not covered that causes us to need guideline 3.1?

Andi
andisnow@us.ibm.com
IBM Accessibility Center
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 01:16:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC