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

RE: G 2.1 and L3SC1 are no different?

From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:55:37 -0800
Message-ID: <7DF35A0B5F67E84B9095C21C8A976418037C5948@RED-MSG-33.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I think the question was 'what are the salient differences', not why am I top posting...

The phrases are nearly identical but the statement of purpose talks to the final result, content _being_ keyboard accessible, and the SC talks to the action of the author in _designing_ the content to, hopefully, achieve that result.

Joe's point, that the author cannot guarantee the final outcome, is why the SC doesn't speak to outcome but design.


η ελευθερία της ομιλίας είναι ουσιαστική στη δημοκρατία

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: G 2.1 and L3SC1 are no different?

> Guideline 2.1:
> Make all functionality operable via a keyboard or a keyboard interface.
> Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.1:
> 1. All functionality of the content is designed to be
> operated through a keyboard or keyboard interface.

Both are user-agent issues that the content author cannot guarantee.


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:56:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:51 UTC