W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

GL 4.2 Issues Summary

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:18:11 -0700
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <>

Summary of bugzilla entries for Guideline 4.2:

Issues that are closed

Issue 821 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=821]
Reword SC L1 #2 for consistency with guideline
Overtaken by events: this language is no longer in the success
criterion, based on the proposal for Guideline 4.2 adopted at the
06/23/05 meeting.

Issue 1060 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1060]
Do we require or permit alternative accessible pages?
Addressed by the proposal for Guideline 4.2 adopted at the 06/23/05
Issue 1221 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1221]
lack of support for Javascript in W3C technologies
The proposal for Guideline 4.2 adopted at the 06/23/05 meeting
describes the requirements to be met by Javascript authors, if
Javascript is within the selected technology baseline.

Issue 1231 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1231]
Issue Summary for guideline 4.2 (technology-supports-access)
Addressed by this posting!

Issues 463, 571, 712, 842, 855, 932, 1073, 1334, 1335, 1336, and 1419 are
closed by the decision to separate the policy on baseline technologies
from WCAG, and the definition of baseline and conformance

Issue 463 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=463]
Why list "required" technologies?

Issue 571 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=571]
Principle 4: Choosing technologies supported by ATs is a moving target

Issue 712 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=712]
What constitutes sufficiently documenting required techs?

Issue 842 [ should be level 1 or 2.] (graceful degradation) should be level 1 or 2.

Issue 855 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=855]
clarification on ".. can still access the resource"

Issue 932 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=932]
Screen reader scripts and relation to Guideline 4

Issue 1073 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1073]
Baseline support / conformance / fallbacks

Issue 1334 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1334]
Principle 4: what is meant by "current technologies"?

Issue 1335 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1335]
4.2: scripting should require alternative representation

Issue 1336 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1336]
User agents: remove all "until" clauses and assume conforming UA?

Issue 1419 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1419]
what is a degraded but usuable experience?

Issues that seem to be closed, but may need clarification

Issue 244 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=244]
Keyboard access for devices that have no AT
I believe this issue is addressed by the choice of baseline
technologies; a technology that is only supported on devices with no
AT would not be good candidates for inclusion in the baseline.

Issue 889 [Move this guideline to principle 1]
Move this guideline to principle 1
I believe this has been addressed by the introduction of the selected
technology baseline. There is no longer a reference to accessible
plug-ins in the guideline.

Issue 970 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=970]
Why single out "user interface"
We spent a long time wrestling with this in the subgroup, and
decided that scripting and web applications required special
guidelines, since they need to address UAAG-type
requirements. However, this is just implicit in the current GL 4.2
success criteria.

Issue 993 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=993]
Focus on strict platform independency and flexible content delivery
I think this comment may have been overtaken by events. The definition
of baseline and conformance are the ways that we have addressed user
agent availability and graceful degradation.

Issue 1133 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1133]
Use static, rather than dynamic, content for critical parts of the Web
This primarily seems to be arguing that technologies that support
dynamic content should not be in the selected baseline. However, there
are also problems for those with cognitive impairments that are not
baseline selection issues.

Issue 1417 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1417]
GL 4.2 hard to understand
The particular clauses that were identified as hard to understand are
no longer used in this guideline. However, I suspect that the current
version is at least as difficult to understand as the previous.

Issues that are not addressed in the current draft

Issue 426 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=426]
Development process v characteristics of accessible content

Issue 822 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=822]
Level 2 SC is too vague

Issue 971 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=971]
Benefit sounds redundant
We need to revisit these examples.

Issue 972 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=972]
Don't encourage separate sites
We need to revisit these examples.

Issue 1050 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1050]
Comments and questions for technology-supports-access
Haven't incorporated editorial suggestion. Need to explain the role of
WCAG in guiding the development of future technologies, to address
this reaction to claims about future technologies.

Issue 1418 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1418]
what are 'accessibility conventions of the mark-up'
Received on Friday, 24 June 2005 02:18:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC