W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2007

Re: EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:05:24 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0712111605o1c338510md065c24dcc07d282@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shawn Henry" <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

It is difficult to list all the ways that information can be conveyed
through presentation and then pose techniques for avoiding them. As a
result you will find these in the failures section rather than the
sufficient techniques section.

Regards,

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group


> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Comment 21: semantics conveyed through presentation?
> >Source:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
> >(Issue ID: 2291)
> >
> >19. [SC 1.3.1] Most of us had no idea what this meant, and the few who did
> >had difficulty explaining what the practical implications of this would be
> >for content development. Do you mean "semantics conveyed through
> >presentation?" Or is it the semantics about the relation between objects?
> >Either one of these, or both, would be more understandable.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >---------------------------------------------
> >
> >This success criterion speaks both to semantics conveyed through
> >presentation, and semantics about relationships between objects. The
> >wording has been carefully worked out to encompass this without being
> >overly prescriptive. The Working Group did not arrive at alternate
> >language that is more clear. The Understanding document provides more
> >detail and examples to clarify the scope of this success criterion.
>
> EOWG reply to Comment 21 semantics conveyed through presentation?:
> We debated the scope of SC 1.3.1 and what is meant by "information". There was some concern that the wording in the SC is more broad than the requirements of the sufficient techniques. All of the sufficient techniques deal with structure, and perhaps what one might call relationships. And none of the sufficient techniques address information other than structure or relationships. Therefore, it was not clear what other "Information" (a very broad term) is covered with this SC. This SC seems to cover only Structure and relationships...
>
> Some in EOWG had specific use cases where we couldn't tell the applicability of this SC. They will submit those separately. [ACTION: Liam & Wayne]
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 00:05:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:09 UTC