- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:05:58 -0500
- To: "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree with you, John, that the disagreement is deeper than the definition of discern. In any case, a discussion over 1194.21(a) is less time sensitive than one on SC 2.1.1.
I agree that 1194.21(a) is oriented towards output ("result of performing a function"). It is really a happy coincidence that textually discernable output correlates so strongly to keyboard accessible input, so I also agree it is desirable to focus SC 2.1.1 *only* on input. As I readily admitted in my first email on this thread, 1194.21(a) can be interpreted to not be applicable to many operations that are readily available from the keyboard. I rather dislike being in the position to argue against the necessity to make things accessible!
I agree that the concept of time-dependency (John, you referred to "duration") is *already* incorporated into the definition of analog. (Digital, by contrast, strongly implies a certain timelessness quality.)
> If we're concerned that people may not know what analog input means,
That is a potentially serious problem. Despite contributions from Gregg, Andi, and Sean, the term was not enthusiastically received when discussed by a group of subject matter experts. Please read the following thread and judge for yourself. Of course, with time, perhaps those folk will warm up to the term...
http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_thread.php?thread=525
> maybe we can remove it from the SC and replace it with something like:
> ... Except where analog input is required -- that is, when
> output must be directly proportional to the input"
I think that is *much* better. I think *all* the timing issues belong cleanly in Guideline 2.2.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 17:06:11 UTC