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

RE: [2.4] Summary of issues for guideline 2.4

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:38:47 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000078629620@spamarrest.com>
Yvette proposed the following two comments by me be closed as per comments
below

 

I agree 

Gregg

 

 
Gregg

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

 


323. Skip Navigation Success Criteria for 2.4 [8]


Gregg Vanderheiden suggested to add another success criteria about skipping
links: " Users are able to skip over navigational bars or other blocks of
links that are greater than 7 when reading with a synthesizer or navigating
using
keyboard. "

 

This had been incorporated in the July 2003 review draft but has since then
been replaced by " Large blocks of material that are repeated on multiple
pages, such as navigation menus with more than 8 or more links, can be
bypassed by people who use screen readers or who navigate via keyboard or
keyboard interface. ".

 

YPH: I think the current phrasing includes Greggs point, so I propose to
check with Gregg if he agrees with that and then close this issue. 


327. Making 1.5 item #1, level 2 more objective [9]


Gregg Vanderheiden commented:  Checkpoints have to be objective.  The
checkpoint 1 which is currently under
best practice gets close, but then changes into an (e.g. black and white,
small display, model, audio playback).  If these are just examples, then it
is unclear to the user what else the individual would need to do.  Suggest 
that this is a good one for a "Level 2" checkpoint, but to do so, we would
need to make it definite.

The checkpoint 1 he refers to is "the structural emphases are chosen to be
distinct on different major visual display types (e.g. black and white,
small display, mono audio playback). "

 

YPH: Gregg's comment is an ongoing effort to make checkpoints objectively
testable. The particular success criteria he chooses as an example has been
eliminated since his comment was made. I propose to recognize the ongoing
general problem of testability but to close this item because it is no
longer valid.

 
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 13:38:59 UTC

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