W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Equivalency, Languages, Checkpoint 2.3

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:41:45 -0500
Message-Id: <200011011613.LAA105456@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 09:33 AM 2000-11-01 -0600, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>I offer the following proposal based on EH [1] proposal:
>

AG:: This looks good.  I have some comments and questions, but this wording is
generally something I could go out and defend to heathens.

-- partial quotes and comments

>2.3 For elements with an author specified equivalents, provide easy access 


AG:: drop the 'an,' it conflicts in number with 'equivalents.' [just grammar]

>to the equivalents through one of the following mechanisms:

AG:: possible edit:

to all equivalents through one or more of the following mechanisms:

[rationale point 1: If 'all' vs. 'the' equivalents sends us off into another
rathole on symmetry, I can live with 'the.'  But 'all' is modestly better in
getting the message across.]

[rationale point 2: It would probably be best to say "at least one" of the
following mechanisms, or "one or more" of the following mechanisms, just so
nobody reads this as "one and only one."  This is a little more wordy and
pedantic, but it is more precise and reader-proof.]

>(1) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives 
>instead of the element;
>(2) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives in 
>addition to the element;

AG:: In options 1 & 2 I regard the addition of "or more" as better for the
user.  On the other hand, while small, I would tend to view this as a
substantive change.  Was the question of 'one' vs. "one or more" discussed in
any depth in the development of the checkpoint, or is this small difference
"all the same thing" at the (rough) level of precision of the existing rough
consensus?

>(3) allowing the user to select the element and then inspect its
alternatives;

AG::  consider for clarity the optional wording:

(3) allowing the user to select the element and, while it is selected, inspect
its alternatives.

[rationale:  While sequence is often interpreted colloquially to indicate
causality, the fact that the inspection is here contingent on selection is not
precisely stated by the 'and then' phraseology.]

>(4) providing a direct link to the alternatives in content, just before or 
>after the element in document order.
>[Priority 1]

Al


-- full quote as was (all quote from here) 
><NEW>
>2.3 For elements with an author specified equivalents, provide easy access 
>to the equivalents through one of the following mechanisms:
>(1) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives 
>instead of the element;
>(2) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives in 
>addition to the element;
>(3) allowing the user to select the element and then inspect its
alternatives;
>(4) providing a direct link to the alternatives in content, just before or 
>after the element in document order.
>[Priority 1]
>
>Note: For example, if an image element in an HTML document has an 
>alternative in the form of a text equivalent, provide access to the text 
>equivalent through at least one of the following mechanisms (1) by 
>replacing the image with the rendered text equivalent, (2) by rendering the 
>text equivalent near the rendered image, (3) by allowing the user to select
the
>image and then inspect the text equivalent, or (4) by allowing the user to 
>follow a link just after the text equivalent.
><NEW>
>
>Rationale: This proposal does not use any new terminology and also adds 
>that this is something the user agent needs to recognize as author supplied 
>information similar to other checkpoints where we use the term.
>
>Jon
>
>[1]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0181.html>http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0181.html
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>MC-574
>College of Applied Life Studies
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>
>Voice: (217) 244-5870
>Fax: (217) 333-0248
>
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>
>WWW: <http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund>http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>WWW: <http://www.w3.org/wai/ua>http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>  
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 11:13:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT