- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:17:12 -0700
- To: "Gian Sampson-Wild" <gian@tkh.com.au>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Another error - the response we sent you was truncated. The complete response was: Thank you for pointing this out. It was also pointed out by another reviewer that the sufficient technique for this success criterion requires paused content to be restarted from the point where it was stopped but with a notice that the display is delayed. This example has been modified to say the ticker will restart from the point where it was paused so that all trades that occurred while it was paused will be displayed. However, if a control to turn off (rather than pause) the presention of real-time information via non-text content (ex. an applet) were present, there would be no requirement that the information that was not displayed during the time it was turned off would be available. Loretta On 7/6/07, Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> wrote: > Comment 66: > > Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer > (Issue ID: LC-1092) > > Example - A stock ticker: In this example it specifies that stocks updated > during the pause will not be shown. This sounds like showing the stocks > updated during the pause is outlawed. > > Proposed Change: > > Change the text to "Stocks updated during the pause may or may not be > displayed, depending on the interface." > > ---------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > ---------------------------- > > Thank you for pointing out the flaws in this example. It was also pointed > out by another reviewer that the sufficient technique for this success > criterion requires paused content to be restarted from the point where it > was stopped but with a notice that the display is delayed. This example has > been modified to say the ticker will restart from the point where it was > paused so that all trades that occurred while it was paused will be > displayed. > ---------------------------- > Response from GSW: > ---------------------------- > How does this differ from 1093? > >
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 00:21:45 UTC