Re: Request modification for WCAG 1.0 Errata

I would like to second this request, and note that it is in fact repeating  
a request I made (when I was just a random ousider) some time ago.

It is important that this erratum is considered for WCAG 1.0, because the  
situation in many countries is that that is the relevant standard. The  
long delays in WCAG 2.0 being finished, and the failure to provide any  
ongoing support for WCAG 1 in the meantime, are leading to increased  
fragmentation in the practical application of WCAG, and to reduced trust  
in WCAG as a reliable basis for accessibility.

med vennlig hilsen

Charles

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:48:28 +0200, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG  
<rscano@iwa-italy.org> wrote:

> So what I suggest is to modify the actual errata like this:
>
> Description (and correction). The note for Checkpoint 3.4 should say
> something about the effect of proportional sizing on raster images as
> follows: "Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language
> attribute values and style sheet property values. [Priority 2] For
> example, in CSS, use 'em' or percentage lengths rather than 'pt' or 'cm'
> or 'px' (Pixel is relative to the viewing device), which are absolute
> units.
> If absolute units are used, validate that the rendered content is usable
> (refer to the section on validation). For example, do not proportionally
> size raster images."
>
> Or find another solution but that clearly define about pixel usage. This
> is important for low-vision people and for the correct law application
> (and for future laws in Europe, due that eEurope project ask to refer to
> WCAG 1.0).


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 06:01:09 UTC