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

RE: 3.2.4 edit?

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:55:26 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a101c62d99$a0521d20$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

Yes 

You asked
> Is not a "set of pages" (or a whole domain) what is being scoped in a
conformance claim?  For the purposes of applying WCAG 2.0, how is this not
effectively "all content"?

But you don't need to have every component in a whole site be exactly the
same.  Just in a set. 

Also - the rule doesn't limit its scope to your scope.  The way you wrote it
it was to all content.  Not just content within a claim. 


> Can you give me a counter example of where it would be appropriate for an
image to have one meaning on one part of a web site and a different purpose
elsewhere on the site?
Hmmmm example. 
The stop sign is used in one location to indicate the control for marking
something as not done.        In another it is used to mark things that are
forbidden or don't work.    A site may have a hundreds of thousands of pages
and thousands of authors.   Requiring that they all do things exactly the
same is not realistic or possible. 

Help? 
 
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 Bailey, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:14 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 3.2.4 edit?


>> Components that have the same functionality within content are identified
consistently.

> Yes.  This sounds good.  Especially since the latest version said within a
page or between pages. 
> Oops.  We can only require that it be consistent within a page or within a
set of pages.
> Not for all content.  How would you cover that aspect?  

I am not understanding the problem.  Is not a "set of pages" (or a whole
domain) what is being scoped in a conformance claim?  For the purposes of
applying WCAG 2.0, how is this not effectively "all content"?  Can you give
me a counter example of where it would be appropriate for an image to have
one meaning on one part of a web site and a different purpose elsewhere on
the site?
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 16:55:31 GMT

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