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

Gateway TECH's suggestions

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:14:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200407292114.i6TLEo87027792@mail2.magma.ca>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <wendy@w3.org>

***********Gateway for Guideline 1.4

I find that Gateway 1.4.1 does not address Guideline 1.4. I think motion and
contrast are separate issues.  I find that Gateway Task 1.4.2 is redundant
with Guideline 1.4 and therefore unnecessary. 

Gateway 1.4.2 goes into an explanation of the reason contrast is important. 

"Many people see disabilities as absolute, people are either completely
impaired or not at all. This is not the case, the vast majority of
disabilities are partial disabilities, people having a range of ability. As
such it is important that people with a partial disability can differentiate
between content and background. In auditory content this means good sound
quality and that background noise is kept to a minimum. Visually users have
a variety of contract needs. Some users also have issues with color. See
section on color."

I suggest this paragraph needs work. First of all I think saying things like
"completely impaired" and "partial disability" is problematic. I presume it
is referring to someone who is partially sighted rather than completely
blind. I understand the intent but I don't think it works.

***********Gateway for Guideline 1.5

Gateway 1.5.2 discusses text transcripts of audio. I think this belongs in
Gateway section 1.1.2 on text alternatives.   I think the purpose of the
Gateway is to provide ways to fulfill the Guidelines rather than finding
ways around them. Guideline 1.5 is about audio contrast and not alternatives
to audio.  Gateway, section 1.1.2 is about text alternatives. I think
Gateway 1.5 should be about techniques to make the foreground of an audio
track accessible to people who are hard of hearing. People who are hard of
hearing may want to be able to listen to an accessible audio track with the
foreground distinguishable from the background rather than being handcuffed
to a text transcript. So I think it would be wrong to suggest that
webmasters can fulfill Guideline 1.5 with a text transcript. 

********** Gateway for Guideline 2.1

The gateway repeats the text of Guideline except it paraphrases it using
different words. Is it necessary to repeat the Guideline in the Technology
Independent Document? And if so should it not use the exact wording of the
Guideline? (the gateway may be using an old wording from the guideline) As
per our discussion on Wed Jun 9, a tab index is perhaps not recommended as
is suggested in Gateway 2.1. There is quite a bit of repetition between the
Guideline informative and the Gateway Informative. the Gateway could perhaps
provide an explanation of a "more abstract" event handler or maybe that
should happen in the glossary of the guidelines.

********** Gateway for Guideline 2.2

It appears the Technology Independent Doc is getting pretty HTML specific
with the "META Refresh" line. We don't have any techniques to stop the
flashing and blinking.

******** Gateway for Guideline 2.4

Technology Independent Doc has a "Bread Crumbs" suggestion, don't map to
cleanly to any particular success criteria. There are a ton of CSS
techniques that I think apply to Guideline 2.4. (Practically all of them!). 

******** Gateway for Guideline 3.1

Becky reports that Gateway # 3.1.1 and 3.1.2


Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 17:14:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC