W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

Issues and recommendations - BATCH 1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:41:49 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b701c610f9$f14722f0$056fa8c0@NC6000BAK>
I have an assignment to go through all the issues and sort them into
categories per our decision.

In reviewing my first batch of the open issues, I found some that I feel can
be closed now.  I only got through about 100 of the 700 but I pass these on
for review and closing if we can. 

 

 

 

  

 


Issue205 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=205>
Ordering of checkpoints

Despite the priority scheme, people feel that the order of the checkpoints
indicates 
some sort of priority or preference.  Oftentimes, people feel that because
the first 
checkpoint requires text equivalents there is an emphasis on making the web 

accessible for people with visual disabilities.


Recommend:


Closing with following comment

Order is different now.   1.1 has text first which is almost all
disabilities.  1.2 has captions first which is deafness.   Others have other
disabilities first.   

 

 

 

 


Issue 206       What does "first" mean in regards to expanding
abbreviations?

What does "first" mean? If I can enter a document at any point due to a 
link to a subheading, then I will miss the "first" occurence of the 
abbreviation or acronym. At the 11 January 2001 teleconference there 
was discussion about pointing to external glossaries and ensuring that 
the appropriate context was made clear. For example a glossary could 
define several meanings for one abbreviation and the author has to 
make clear which one they intend to be used.

 


Recommend:  CLOSE with following text. 


Our current wording makes this clear.  "Providing the abbreviation
immediately following the first use of the expanded form within the delivery
unit."

The other meaning of first (first definition) is OBE.  We no longer use that
language  

 

 


Issue 229       Support for alt, title, and longdesc

What is the current state of screen-reader support for the attributes alt,
title and longdesc?  What about user agents?  Other assistive technologies?

Also

"We hope to 
deprecate this technique in the future but right now felt it was useful." 
Please do not let this technique be deprecated.  It is still the best 
alternative for all audiences.  Describing an image, chart, or graph in 
the actual document text makes the information accessible to everyone. 
Additionally, as we have recently discovered, longdesc implementations 
vary between the assistive technologies, making that technique 
unattractive because of the different behaviors. 

 


Recommend:  


CLOSE with following comment 

Our current doc supports and recognizes all of these techniques as being
sufficient to meet success criterion   

 

 


Issue 255  Content negotiation for links

Content negotiation should not be used instead of a link to a text-only
page.
Content negotiation should be used along with explicit links to alternative
format and language versions.

 

And also

There is a serious issue with technique, "The link element and alternative
documents"
http://w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20050211/#link_alternative.
 
We do not want to encourage the creation or use of text-only pages. Should
we
remove this technique or modify it to talk about linking to accessible
alternatives?

 


Recommend:


CLOSE ISSUE with following comment

Issue addressed by current wording of 'sufficient techniques' all of which
avoid the described problem. 

* [[Providing a link at the top of the non-conformant content that points to
an alternate version that does meet WCAG 2.0 Level 1 success criteria.]]

* [[Providing the non-conformant content to users whose preferences indicate
they can handle it while providing the accessible version as the default if
no content negotiation is done.]]

NOTE: This last option may not be immediately possible with today's
technologies and user agents due to lack of content negotiation.

* [[Providing links to alternatives along with explanations of the purpose
of those links]].      

 

 

 

 


Issue 261   Numbering Proposal


This issue dealt with alternate numbering proposals for guidelines and
success criteria.         


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :  

-  we have a new numbering format.   

 

 


Issue 354     Should all of the non-normative information be removed from
the document?


 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

This has largely by done now.   Very little remains - and is necessary.

 

 


Issue  (text for principle 2) 378 Interface Controls applied to the Content

Guideline 2: OPERABLE. Ensure that Interface Elements in the Content are
Operable by Any User
 
Suggest "Interface Controls applied to the Content" instead of "Elements
in
the Content" to avoid the common used of elements (or element tag names)
as the structure-conveying part of tagged documents.


Additional Comment #1

Discussed at Oct. 2, 2003 telecon:  no resolution, possibly "ensure that the
interface controls provided by content
is operable by any user"?


 Additional Comment  #2

Propose to leave as is because it is ok that "element" is overloaded in this
instance.

 


Recommend:


CLOSE with existing comments 

 

 


Issue 389     confusion for developers regarding mapping and priorities


 

This guideline asks why some are CORE and others not.     And confusion with
this two level approach. 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

 

Agree.  Too confusing.   So this language is no longer used in document.   

 

 


Issue 390  WCAG 1.0 checkpoints regarding alternate versions should be
mapped to 4.2 should be mapped to 4.3


 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

There is no longer a 4.3.     4.1 and 4.2 reorganized and WCAG 1.0 has been
remapped. 

 

 


Issue 462   good things in WCAG 1.0 that have been removed in 2.0


It reads (in its entirety): 

 

Tina Holmboe writes:
 
  Finally, it seems to me that alot of GOOD things previously in WCAG 1.0
has
  been removed from 2.0. I've noted that some say that the new version must
  be judged as a stand-alone specification, but as Christian Buehler points
  out: 1.0 will be with us for a long time.
 
  There are things missing here; things which made sense in WCAG 1.0 and
  would make sense here as well. The priorities need to come back; and the
  language tightened up; the ambiguities taken out.
 
  As it is, WCAG 2.0 will be terribly difficult to take out in the field;
  doing so is not a prospect I relish.

 


Recommend:


 

Without more specifics it is hard to know what this refers to.  This is very
old.  Other bugz have specifics. 

Suggest we CLOSE this with comment :

 

A number of new success criteria have been added along with reorganization.
Also a new WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 mapping.

 

 

 


Issue 476     suggested improvements to conformance section


 

-          these included

o        adding a conformance disclaimer that the test suite did not
guarantee conformance

o        moving 1.0 discussion out / use the term 'transition' 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

 

We revised the guidelines docs to account for this.    There are no test
suites for the guidelines (just tests for techniques).    The WCAG 1.0
discussion was not moved out but the word transition was incorporated. 

 

 


Issue 524       References to what might cause flickering

There should be a reference to the types of things that can causes such
flickering.
Animated graphics eg gifs/pngs, multimedia flash/svg, video qt/rt/wm, js
techniques might and some browsers bugs have been known to (will find more
detail).

 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

Current Understanding WCAG 2.0 document provides examples and discussion of
what content is covered.    Browser bugs are not content and not covered.
Specific technologies are not usually listed. 

AND

Adding the following to the intent section.   

Flashing can be caused by many technologies including (but not limited to)
animated graphics (e.g. gifs, pngs), multimedia (e.g., Flash, SVG), video
(e.g. Quicktime, Realmedia, Windows Media) and scripts (e.g. Javascript)

 

 


Issue 526 views of information in techniques gateway


 

Deals with how gateway (now Understanding WCAG 2.0 ) would be organized. 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

 

Understanding WCAG 2.0 organization now established and out for review.

 

 


Issue  534 Are text equiv needed for submit buttons?

Text equivalents must be provided for... submit buttons, ..."
 
Do submit buttons actually need text equivelents? Or am I thinking in terms
of HTML where the text equiv is inherent to the button? In fact is this
whole
paragraph too HTML oriented?
 
"Text equivalents must be provided for logos, photos, submit buttons,
applets,
bullets in lists, ASCII art, and all of the links within an image map as
well as invisible images used to lay out a page."

 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

Specific text quoted no longer exists in documents.   Questions now answered
by existing Understanding WCAG 2.0 doc and html techniques. 

 

 


Issue 535  Explaination of when to use text equiv and when not to.


 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

This is now covered in Understanding WCAG 2.0 for guideline 1.1 

 

 


Issue  537 Views      


Asks for different views of the guidelines, SUCCESS CRITERIA etc.



Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

 

Current documents including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and appendices provide
multiple views as requested.    Benefits and Impact matrices are not planned
but may be done later. 

 

 


Issue  539  Table of contents


Several recommendations including how to handle "CORE" and "EXTENDED"
checkpoints. 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

 

Documents have been completely reorganized and table of contents updated.
Many suggestions no longer apply to new content.    Comments on new formats
invited. 

 

 


Issue 575  Opera screen shot showing link being used


Issue reads (in full) 

 

Screen shot for the editorial as soon as I figure out how to attach files
;)

------- Additional Comment
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=575#c1> #1 From
<mailto:tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com> Tom Croucher 2003-10-15 06:16 -06:00
[reply <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=575#add_comment>
] ------- 

Created an attachment (id=4)
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/attachment.cgi?id=4>  [edit
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/attachment.cgi?id=4&action=edit> ]
800x576 jpeg of using <link> in Opera 7.2 on windows

 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

Task completed. 

 

 

 


Issues 612, 613, 614, 615          1.5 Additional Notes, Item 1,2,3,& 4


 


Recommend:


CLOSE with comment :

The edits suggested are to clean up language in notes to a checkpoint that
no longer exists.  

 
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 06:42:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT