W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: G5 sufficient for 2.2.1?

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:13:42 -0500
Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1735A6F1-C460-4D82-AF9F-E564F287B12F@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>

Agree.

Gregg
-----------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Ind and Biomed Engr
University of Wisconsin-Madison






On Sep 12, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:

>
> I agree. It is the sort of "null" technique that we don't usually
> write up, but since we list it for 2.2.3, we should list it for 2.2.1
> as well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Cynthia Shelly
> <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Shouldn't G5 "G5: Allowing users to complete an activity without  
>> any time
>> limit" be sufficient for 2.2.1 (Timing Adjustable)?  If you have no  
>> timed
>> events, then you don't need to make them adjustable, right?  I'd  
>> like to see
>> it there as a way to meet the L1, since a lot of people won't look  
>> at the
>> L3.
>
>
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2008 02:14:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:54 GMT