W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2011

Comments on UAAG Guideline 2.7 Proposals

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:56:20 -0400
To: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A3CE1DE86@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

Kelly asked us all to use the call time to comment on the proposals. Here are thoughts. Simon has done a lot of good work in a very difficult area, but there are still some things to work out:

- I note Greg L's point about redundancy between 2.7.1 "Discover navigation and activation keystrokes" and the pair 2.1.6 "Present Direct Commands in Rendered Content" and 2.1.7 "Present Direct Commands in User Interface"
- typo: buy=>by
- Example is a barrier example not an implementation, is this intended? It might be reworded as follows:
+ Mary cannot use the mouse or keyboard due to a repetitive strain injury, 
instead she uses voice control technology with uses a mouse-less browsing plug-in to her browser. The plug-in overlays each hyperlink with a number that can then be used to directly select it (e.g. by speaking the command "select link 12"). This prevents X from having to say the work 'tab' numerous times to get to her desired hyperlink.

- This one is tricky because of what counts as an explicitly defined relationship. I wouldn't exactly say an HTML table column header is explicitly defined. 
- Is the requirement really to provide label-type relationships (would need to be defined)?
- intent should not be HTML specific. I think it is sufficient to say "structured content" (e.g. tables, forms, etc.)
- the example is ok

- this is quite a wordy SC - I actually don't think I fully understand what it requires. " in which the structure and semantics are implied by presentation" seems to imply that the user agent needs to create explicit structure when it is implied by presentation.
- Is this really Level A.

- ok, except the intent should be worded more positively. It's what we intend to enable, not a problem description.

- the SC wording is too general. But trust me that I KNOW hard this is to define. We went through it in ATAG2.

- Good. Just needs a more positive intent.

I think this used to refer to the elements that could be navigated to and helped ground the 2.7.5 requirement. Is the term " Set of Important Elements" attached to anything anymore?


(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 17:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:40 UTC