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

programmatically determined

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:49:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4A47@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <boland@nist.gov>, "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Do we need more specification of exactly what is meant by 
> "recognition by user agents" in the context of the following 
> proposed redefinition and of the purposes for WCAG2.0?

Thanks Tim.

The 508 verbiage (identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology) is a little stronger in one case, but consider sc 1.3.2 versus WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 2.1 (1194.22(c)) per the mapping document:

Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.

When information is conveyed by color, the color can be recognized by user agents (including assistive technology) or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors. 

Coming back to Tim's point (I think), important information in red passes sc 1.3.2 since the browser and screen reader (if the user thinks to ask) *recognizes* the color.

A message like "the required information is in red" is not enough for 2.1.  We make developers at least add an asterisk or something.  The justification for this approach seems weaker for 1.3.2 than for 2.1.
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 16:49:32 UTC

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