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

RE: Meaning of "recognition by user agents"?

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:10:21 -0600
To: <boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006601c5f9c7$29e37db0$77a5d846@NC6000BAK>

In general the guide doc is the place to explain a word if the word meets
the dictionary definition.

Now for this case recognition would 


 
Gregg

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


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of boland@nist.gov
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:27 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Meaning of "recognition by user agents"?


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?  Does such recognition only imply that the user
agent can measurably distinguish an element and/or attribute from other
content, or be able to determine (for example) that the element is in fact a
"title" element 
(and any implications of the word "title"),  or something more?    What is
the 
desired "level" of recognition for the proposed redefinition for WCAG's
purposes?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST


         Quoting "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>:

> 
> > Bruce, would this sort of edit address your concerns?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > There *would* be a tradeoff -- the Guidelines document would become
> somewhat longer.
> 
> The length issue is more of concern for the checklist, IMHO.
> 
> Can we replace:
> can be recognized by user agents, including assistive technologies, 
> that support the technologies in the chosen baseline
> 
> With just:
> can be recognized by user agents, including assistive technologies
> 
> It would seem to me that the reference to baseline is redundant, but a 
> helpful addition to the glossary.  It seems safe to me to omit from 
> guidelines and success criteria.  If so, now we are down to just an 
> extra fifty (or so) words.
> 
> > It would be a little trickier for the other two.
> 
> Agreed, but I think this approach is on the right track.  In either 
> case, one can argue that you have made an improvement over the 508 
> equivalent "identified with functional text that can be read by assistive
technology".
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 18:10:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:41 GMT