W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 03:07:10 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060524030710.ED30247B9F@mojo.w3.org>


Name: Jason White
Email: jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au
Affiliation: none
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.3.4
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
If it is sufficient that the change in presentation of text can be

programmatically determined, then most changes in presentation (other,

perhaps, than in bitmapped images) will meet this criterion. The user agent,

after all, requires this information in order to render the change.



However, programmatic determination of the change in presentation is not

sufficient to meet the requirements of user agents and assistive technologies

providing presentations in other modalities (or in the same modality with

different stylistic requirements according to the needs of the user with a

disability). How is the user agent supposed to map the change in presentation

to a corresponding change, whether in text or in presentation, in its

generated rendering, if the purpose or meaning of the variation in

presentation cannot be programmatically determined? In the worst case, it

could simply \"announce\" the change, e.g., \"voice pitch flat\" or \"font size

14pt\" and leave the user to try to work out the significance, if any, of this;

but a better solution is to use the capabilities of the technology to convey

the meaning or significance of the change, while also allowing \"merely

decorative\" changes having no meaningful purpose to be ignored.



This shortcoming of the current criterion is addressed in the proposal below.

Proposed Change:
\"The meaning or purpose of the change in presentation of text can be

programmatically determined\". Alternatively, just \"purpose\" could be used in

place of \"meaning or purpose\" in the above. Alternatively, keep this criterion

as is and add a more stringent requirement at level 2 or level 3.
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 03:07:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:06 UTC