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

proposed new G2.3 L1 SC and G4.2 considerations - my action items?

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:52:43 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

For my first action item from the 10 November  2005 WCAG WG
teleconference, I was asked to propose a new G2.3 success criterion (SC) that
addresses the provision of alternative equivalent content.    My recollection
from the teleconference was that this new SC could be deferred to the
next WCAG2.0 release.    Thus, proposed
wording for new SC is:

"When the user is warned (per SC 2.3.1),  the user is also notified
(at the same time?) that (accessible?) alternative equivalent content
(that does not violate both red flash threshold and general flash
threshold) is available (provided?)."

NOTE: The words in parentheses are possible additions/modifications to
the proposed wording previous.

A possible "softer" wording for the new SC might be:
"A mechanism is available for (locating or determining?) alternative 
equivalent content.."

QUESTION: Would this SC come right after 2.3.1 at Level 1, or would
it be at L2, before the current 2.3.2?

For my second action item from the 10 November 2005 WCAG WG teleconference,
I was asked to consider G4.2 to see if the need is covered by G4.2 
.   After investigating G4.2,
I do not feel the need is adequately addressed in G4.2 of 
provision/availability of alternative equivalent content in "replacement" 
of "provocative" content.  This is because G4.2 provides for an
alternative form that does meet all Level 1 success criteria (SCs),  but, 
according to my investigation,  this alternative form would then just 
provide a warning for provocative content (without provision of equivalent 
alternative non-provocative content) at Level 1?    Particularly if the 
provocative content is "critical" to the delivery unit, or even comprises 
the entire delivery unit, then I think that such an alternative is needed.

QUESTION: I notice that the language of SC 2.3.1 is repeated in SC 4.2.2 
#1.   Do we want to "repeat" language across multiple SCs, or have the 
language in each SC be unique?   I think that the latter approach may seem 
to make document management easier?  Is there a specific reason why the 
"non-baseline issue" could not be covered in SC 2.3.1 (or at least a 
cross-reference made
available)?   I know that the Guide Document for SC 4.2.2 does reference SC 
2.3.1, but if a reader does not access the SC 4.2.2 Guide Document first, 
then the reader may have a question per: this repetition..

Comments and thoughts welcome..

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 15:54:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC