W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [CSS21] Inaccessible Index a violation of WCAG (issue-21)

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:40:09 -0500
Message-Id: <73F967D1-286E-4644-9BC1-718F4847A658@IEEE.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>


On 23 Jan 2008, at 2:34 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

>
> On Wednesday 2008-01-23 14:01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>> however, the issue as logged with the "Resolution" being "assumed
>> editorial", and the post which points to the CSS 2.1 issues list
>
> Sorry, but what's the problem with this?  Fixing the accessibility
> of the document doesn't require group consensus on the changes; it's
> a matter for the editor to fix.  Given that it's on the issues list
> and there's an action for the editor to fix it, why are you
> complaining about it again?

Only that the issue _as recorded_ might not adequately capture the
issue, including the suggestions for how to fix.

We just wanted to make sure that by the time the editor
turned to the task of fixing this, that the WCAG2 technique would be
under his/her nose.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/C7.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/navigation- 
mechanisms-refs.html

Maybe this is all obvious to you CSS mavens.  It hadn't been obvious
to us.  It took us a while to arrive at the technique that is suggested
by WCAG2.

So we didn't want that suggestion left behind when the issue
was recorded.  You know, three link rule?

Al

>
> -David
>
> -- 
> L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
> Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 21:40:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:58 GMT