W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Guideline 6 - access to content

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:14:50 -0400
Message-ID: <378611EA.770A7957@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> Guideline 6 seems a candidate for a few mergers:
> 
> 6.1, 6.3 and 6.6 are "allow the user to access all content, including
> alternative content.

For 6.1 and 6.3:

Does this mean access to content in comments or content hidden
by style sheets?

Alternative content may not be rendered but we want users to have
access to it. 

Thus, it may still make sense to keep two checkpoints:
  - Access to (rendered?) content.
  - Access to alternative content (and each language specifies where
that comes from).

For 6.6: When alternative text has been specified explicitly as
         empty (i.e., an empty string), render nothing.

   This is a rendering issue with a particular purpose. It could be
considered
   a technique of 6.3, but I think it's probably been included as a
checkpoint
   to ensure non-confusing rendering.
 
> 6.7, 6.9 and 6.10 Where multiple alternatives exist, allow the user to choose
> which are rendered.

I counter-propose merging 6.7 and 6.9 (text captions) but leaving 6.10
separate. 
 
> 6.8, 6.11, 6.12 Allow the user control over the snchronisation content where
> one or more forms are time-dependent (eg video, audio)
 
> I also suspect all this really belongs in guideline 4

I've had thoughts in that direction as well. One guideline talks
about turning on/off, the other about (finer) control over information.
Although I think on/off functionality is subsumbed by finer control, 
I don't think those checkpoints should be absorbed - on/off should
remain
separate. One reason is that on/off control is supposed to stop that
which reduces accessibility, while finer control is supposed to allow
greater accessibility (and no, I don't consider that the same as
"reduce inaccessibility").

Thus, we are dealing with two principles and I think two guidelines
could
remain.

 - Ian
-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Received on Friday, 9 July 1999 11:12:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC