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

RE: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:02:51 -0400
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lguarino@adobe.com>, "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c6c2ce$ffbcc290$650fa8c0@home>

I've been thinking about the arguments against the use of "Web Site"
yesterday, when it was proposed by TEAM B as the definition of a "set of web
units." The biggest argument against the use of website was that we want to
allow for the possibility of a subset of related Web Units within the site.
If that is the case we could adjust the definition to include the website or
any subset of the website. How about this as a starting point?

Definition for "Set"

"A collection of web units that make up a web site or are contained within a
web site which are related in purpose or function."

David MacDonald

access empowers people...
        ...barriers disable them...
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:40 AM
To: Carlos A Velasco
Subject: Re: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"

Hi, Carlos,

While we do still need to discuss what a Web unit is, I think this issue is
separate. Think about how we would want to answer the question for HTML
pages. If you have a complex web site, with different areas providing
different kinds of functionality, targeting different audiences, etc.,
should these success criteria be applied over the entire site? Separately
over subsections of the site? If you are creating a web application, are the
answers the same? 


On 8/17/06 11:22 PM, "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>

> Dear Loretta, all,
> I think you cannot discuss what "a set of Web units" is, when you don't
> even have clearly defined what a Web unit is. See on this topic, i.e.
> [1], based upon comments of Johannes Koch, Christophe Strobbe, Carlos
> Iglesias and myself in this list and in ERT.
> regards,
> carlos
> [1]
> Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>> A number of our success criteria involve properties of a Web unit within
>> a set of Web units:
>> *//*
>> */2.4.1/* A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are
>> repeated on multiple Web units.
>> */2.4.2/* More than one way is available to locate content within a set
>> of Web units where content is not the result of, or a step in, a process
>> or task.
>> */2.4.7/* Information about the user's location within a set of Web
>> units is available.
>> */3.2.3/* Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web
>> units within a set of Web units occur in the same relative order each
>> time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
>> */3.2.4/* Components that have the same functionality within a set of
>> Web units are identified consistently.
>> We received several comments that point out that the set of Web units is
>> not well defined, and that these SC can be satisfied trivially if the
>> ³set of Web units² is just the Web unit itself. What ³set of Web units²
>> should an author be considering so that we gain the accessibility
>> benefits of these SC? Clearly the entire web is too large and the Web
>> unit itself is too small.
>> We started a discussion at the end of todayıs call about what we mean,
>> in these SC, by a set of Web units. Some of the ideas that were
>> discussed included:
>> -       the web site
>> -       the contents of the conformance statement
>> -       a set of Web units that is intended by its author to be used
>> together
>> -       all of the Web units within a site that can be reached from the
>> graph starting at some root Web unit.
>> More thoughts or suggestions?
>> Loretta
>> ///////Loretta Guarino Reid/
>> lguarino@adobe.com
>> Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 14:03:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:01 UTC