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

Re: Proposal to Delete or Keep 2.4.1

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:39:47 +0100
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060314141643.03260e10@mailserv.esat.kuleuven.be>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


At 03:38 14/03/2006, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
<blockquote>
We need to decide to delete or keep 2.4.1  Navigational mechanisms within 
the content can be programmatically determined. [How to meet 2.4.1]

There was a proposal to delete it because there were no techniques for the 
SC.

All techniques for 2.4.1 in the How TO Meet doc are either techniques for 
other success criteria as well,  (so they are already covered) or they are 
just a title with no techniques (in sufficient section).
</blockquote>

I have edited the stub 
'<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_Header_misuse>Failure 
due to Header 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_Header_misuse>misuse' 
and the two empty ones: 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_structural_markup_for_presentation_effects>Failure 
due to using structural markup for presentation 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_structural_markup_for_presentation_effects>effects 
and 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_scripting_events_instead_of_anchors>Failure 
due to using scripting events instead of anchors. The only one that is 
still empty is 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_expose_common_navigational_features&action=edit>Programmatically 
expose common navigational 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_expose_common_navigational_features&action=edit>features: 
I don't know what we can put there beyond creating links/navigational 
features according to spec (in HTML: the a, area and link elements; 
possibly also the base element, although that affects the behaviour of 
certain links rather than being a navigational mechanism in its own right).

I'm not sure if 'Failure due to using structural markup for presentation 
effects' should map to 2.4.1. How about 1.3.1 or 1.3.4?


Gregg also wrote:
<blockquote>
The last poll was 12 to delete and 1 to keep and 2 who "could live with 
deleting it".

If there are techniques for the doc prepared and polled by Thursday we can 
discuss and see if new techniques change the picture. Otherwise we will 
need to delete as having no documented techniques to meet.

If there are techniques that are not already covered by other techniques – 
then the group can discuss and see if they feel it should stay or not.
</blockquote>

If there are failures that are not covered elsewhere, then the SC has a 
reason for existence. I don't think that the other success criteria cover 
all situations (see especially the example in the third failure).
I will now withdraw to my bunker and wait for the bombshells ;-)

Regards,

Christophe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT