W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: Not described in words

From: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 12:26:23 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B03A8FD2D@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

About putting all the timing issues under 2.2

As currently worded, 2.2 governs the user's ability to control time
limits set by the content on reading or interaction.

I'm not sure that cases where output must be directly proportional to
the input (i.e., analog input) would really belong here: it's not really
a "time limit," and it doesn't feel like the same kind of user-control
issue, either.

So if we wanted to deal with that specific concern under 2.2 we might
have to rewrite the Guideline text *and* the text of 2.2.1, and I worry
that There Be Dragons...


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Bailey, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:30 am
To: Loretta Guarino Reid
Subject: RE: Not described in words

> Bruce, we would need to think this through more carefully, since 
> removing the reference to timing means that keyboard operations that 
> depend upon the amount of time that a key is held down would be 
> permitted, and we know that this introduces accessibility problems for

> some people.

Can you provide some examples that are not already covered by SC 2.2.1?

I am wondering if removing the reference to timing could interfere with
Sticky Keys, but I am not coming up with a specific use case.  I
certainly appreciate that we need to consider this carefully.  I suspect
any scenarios we do come up with should be addressed by Guideline 2.2.

> I agree with Gregg on this.  Let's plug these different definitions 
> into the phrase "discern textually":

I regret that I do not have definition to use for substituting for the
term.  You just inserted "textually" into the definition for discern,
which actually pretty much worked okay for me!  In any event, please try
being a little more flexible with this exercise:

1. to separate or distinguish text.
2. to recognize text or identify text as separate and distinct: to
discriminate as text.
3. to come to know text or recognize text mentally; to understand the
differences between texts.

> The verbs here are all mental processes, and I can't combine them with

> "textually" in any way that makes sense.  I know that the phase has 
> captured a concept that is clear in your mind, but the phrase isn't 
> communicating that concept to me.

I appreciate that "discern textually" requires a certain paradigm shift.
Think of the "aha experience" you get when a graphic designer to
understand for the first time that the Web is *not* a visual medium.
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 18:26:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:02 UTC