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

RE: proposal for 4.2.1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:08:27 -0500
To: "'Tim Boland'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c6e0b4$76481b50$8c17a8c0@NC6000BAK>
> For "up-to-date", does this mean that all "versions" of a web unit would
have 

> exactly the same demonstrable (verifiable) "time-stamp" or "date modified"


> indication on each web unit?  



The wording as proposed would not require that the versions all be the same.


Just that the conformant version be the most up to date.  

(They can all be equally up to date or not).  

 

"When [multiple versions of a Web unit] are available, at least one version
conforms at Level A and is the most recent update. Any version that does not
conform at Level A provides a mechanism to obtain an up to date version that
does, and that mechanism meets all Level 1 success criteria."



With regard to the definition of the word "version"  - there is a problem.
At least there are several different ways people use the term.  Is it
ambiguous in this sentence though?   Don't know.   We do define it so that
should take care of that issue I would think.  (The square brackets indicate
that the phrase is in the glossary). 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tim Boland
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 9:50 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: proposal for 4.2.1

For "up-to-date", does this mean that all "versions" of a web unit would
have exactly the same demonstrable 
(verifiable) "time-stamp" or "date modified" indication on each web unit?  


SIDE NOTE: The word "version" still implies to me changes in functionality
(please access "definition" of "version" in
[1] -"new version of specification refers to significant functional change
and enhancement"-, and TAG finding on "versioning" in [2]).  I know that [1]
applies to specification versions, and [2] applies to language versioning,
and we are discussing web unit versions.    Still, since we are using the
same term -"version"- differently in WCAG than it may be used in other W3C
documents ("version" is an "overloaded" term within W3C?), perhaps we should
either define "version" in our glossary, say more specifically what we mean
by the use of the word "version" in our context, or replace "version" with
another word (perhaps "alternative", as in "alternative Web units" that are
"equivalent")?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

[1]: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer
[2]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning.html


 At 11:03 PM 9/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:



xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> 

Hmmmm

 

That is the number one complaint  - and we always get grief for this SC.  So
I thought maybe it should be in the SC itself.  

 

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  


  _____  


From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 7:18 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: Re: proposal for 4.2.1

 


Can we address this issue in the definition of multiple versions of a Web
unit? The definition says that all versions have the same content and
functionality, which should imply that they are equally up to date. But we
may want to add wording to the definition to make this explicit.

On 9/23/06 3:47 PM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:

I think there was a strong desire to point out that it has to be up to date.
So maybe
 

When [multiple versions of a Web unit] are available, at least one version
conforms at Level A and is most recent update. Any version that does not
conform at Level A provides a mechanism to obtain an up to date version that
does, and that mechanism meets all Level 1 success criteria.


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9> 


  _____  


From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org]
<mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org%5d>  On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino
Reid
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:16 AM
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: proposal for 4.2.1

Based on today s discussion and Greg s stab, here is another proposal for
wording SC 4.2.1:


When [multiple versions of a Web unit] are available, at least one version
conforms at Level A. Any version that does not conform at Level A  provides
a mechanism to obtain a version that does, and that mechanism meets all
Level 1 success criteria.

Glossary entry:

multiple versions of a Web unit:

Web units in the same natural language that provide all of the same
information and functionality <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/> 


Is this getting any closer?

Loretta Guarino Reid

lguarino@adobe.com

Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

 
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 15:08:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT