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

Re: proposal for 4.2.1

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:27:49 -0700
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Tim Boland'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C13D5195.174F5%lguarino@adobe.com>
I continue to think that we want to put these distinctions into the
definition of ³multiple versions of a Web unit², and not try to spell them
out in a success criterion that is already long, complex, and hard to
understand. If ³multiple versions of the same Web unit² seems less
misleading, we could make that the glossary term.

I think it is a mistake to make this SC cover anything but equivalent Web
units. It doesn¹t strengthen the accessibility impact to permit
non-compliant versions that are out of date and it just introduces more
confusion.

Tim, do you have suggestions for something that is less overloaded than
³version²?


Loretta


On 9/25/06 8:08 AM, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:

>> > 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).
> 
>  
> ³When [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.²
> 
> 
> With regard to the definition of the word ³version²  - 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 16:28:52 GMT

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