Re: Request for Response

 

Hi Aurelien

  Thank you for your input.  Answers to your questions are below in context.


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
If Attachment is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-comments-wcag20-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-comments-wcag20-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> aurélien levy
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:01 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: CALL a Levy Re: Request for Response
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> here is my response regarding your comment :
> 
> ----
> 
> 1)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0086.html
> Yes the problem I speak about is colored text referring to a 
> colored object.

It is ok to use color to refer to things as long as that is not the only way
that you refer to them.  (e.g.   the require fields have red labels and are
marked with an asterisk)

> 
> 2)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0087.html
> ok but i think it's a lack maybe a small note about that 
> point can be added
> 

We have changed test on F73 from otherwise visually identifiable (i.e.
bolded, italicized) as a link without relying on color.
to 
otherwise visually identifiable (e.g. bolded, italicized) as a link without
relying on color(hue).


> 3)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0088.html
> ok for the logo exception. Just for my understanding, for 
> example, in a case of a company with an orange background and 
> white text logo who failed the contrast ratio like 
> http://www.orange.fr/. They can't use the same orange 
> background color with white text on it for other element in 
> his web design even if it's already in his corporate visual 
> guidelines.

That is correct - except if they have a mechanism where the user can achieve
the proper contrast if they wish.  

> 
> On the Large Print suggestion I agree that the note 4 cover 
> the problem of cascading size but my concern is more in the 
> fact that you speak about pt instead of px. Can you tell me 
> how you determine easily the size in pt of an element when he 
> is rendered with text-size:1cm, or text-size:0.77em with a 
> lot of cascading, or text-size:12px. And it's even more 
> difficult for image of text if you don't have access to the 
> graphic source. Even the CSS 2.1 specification say : Absolute 
> length units are only useful when the physical properties of 
> the output medium are known (cf : 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units)
> 


RE Font conversion:  
There is a standard conversion from pt to size (1 inch = 72.2pt).

RE: Absolute vs relative: 
We agree that relative rather than absolute should be used. So we recommend
that absolute size not be used.

RE: Cascading  
For the situation where you have cascading the easiest might be to visually
compare the cascaded font to a non-cascaded font of the size you are
interested in. 

RE: Images of text
If you are creating the image - you may have the text size.  If not the best
method is to compare it to a know font size on screen. 


> 4)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0089.html
> ok
> 
> 5)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0090.html
> ok
> 
> 6)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0091.html
> ok so I add to declare the change in the language on the 
> single word case only for the words who are really clearly 
> with any possible doubt in other language and I didn't have 
> to check in at least one dictionary of the surrounding 
> language. In that situation I think we can achieve really 
> different result in an human evaluation
> 
> ----
> 
> By the way I think there is a case not covered by wcag 1 or 2 or i 
> didn't know where, for example :
> on a left part a clock picture with an alt attribut "the 
> store A is open 
> between 8 and 12", on a right part some information about  
> adress of the 
> store A.
> The same with a store B, C, D, etc and on top of all this bocks a 
> statement saying  "to know  the  opening hour of the stores move your 
> mouse hover the clock picture."
> 
> People with keyboard navigation and even those with a browser 
> different 
> from IE can't have access to the information

This is covered by 2.1.1.  If information is only presented though use of a
mouse it would fail 2.1.1.   This would be an inappropriate use of ALT if it
was new information.    

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Aurélien Levy
> > Dear Aurelien Levy,
> >
> > On March 21, the WCAG Working Group responded to your 
> additional comments on the
> > 11 Dec 2007 Last Call Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility
> > Guidelines 2.0. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Could you let us know  by
> > Tuesday, April 8 whether you are satisfied with our resolutions? If
> > that date is not possible, please reply to this message indicating
> > when you will be able to respond.
> >
> > If we do not hear from you by Tuesday, April 8, we will assume that
> > you are satisfied with the responses to your comments.
> >
> > Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these 
> guidelines.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0086.html
> > [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0087.html
> > [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0088.html
> > [4] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0089.html
> > [5] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0090.html
> > [6] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/200
> 8Mar/0091.html
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 17:13:08 UTC