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

Issue with intro to "advisory techniques"

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:01:43 -0500
Message-Id: <200512151502.jBFF20J1018280@mail4.magma.ca>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
All of the advisory sections of the "How to meet." doc say:

 "Although *not required* for conformance, the following additional
techniques should be considered." 

By saying the advisory techniques are "not required," are we not implying
that the core techniques are "required"? It seems to imply a requirement of
the core techniques.

The other problem is that some of the solutions in the advisory sections are
very useful and we are almost deterring people with the current language. I
think this is particularly evident in the 4.1 advisory section where we find
"Validation" as an optional technique. We are almost discouraging people
with our current language. Another place it strikes me as deterring an
extremely useful technique is in the 2.1 advisory to use unique letter
combinations in drop down lists. 

There actually may be cases where someone can meet the SC by using some of
the optional techniques, and we don't want to imply that that is not
possible. I think we need to reword this. I recommend the following:

<current>Although not required for conformance, the following additional
techniques should be considered in order to make content more accessible.
Not all techniques can be used or would be effective in all

<proposed>The following additional techniques should also be considered as
ways to make content more accessible. Not all of these techniques can be
used in all cases. However, some of them may be effective in some

David MacDonald


.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.


Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 15:08:28 UTC

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