W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > February 2014

Move the logic away from How to meet and into the technique

From: <noreply@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:43:51 +0000
Message-Id: <E1WDBkl-0004JY-VI@shauna.w3.org>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Name: Wilco Fiers
Email: w.fiers@accessibility.nl
Affiliation: Accessibility Foundation
Document: TD
Item Number: G101
Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: Move the logic away from How to meet and into the technique
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
G101 is not a solution to SC 3.1.3 on it’s own. The how to meet document contains a structure based on multiple possible combinations of techniques, including G101 to create a few distinct possible solutions to SC 3.1.3. This is fairly confusing and almost impossible to test. This is the only criterium in How to meet that works by pairing multiple techniques in different ways to gain a single result. Reading one of the techniques thus doesn’t really tell you how to solve for SC 3.1.3. I expect this was done to avoid duplication of content, but I think this little bit of duplication can avoid a lot of confusion. And it’s not like there is no duplication in other techniques either. So instead of building a logical structure in How to meet, move this logic into one or multiple techniques.

This comment is part of the project for the Accessibility Support Database

Proposed Change:
I think the best solution would be to flatten the How to meet into simply having the following 5 techniques, each of which can be used to meet the criteria without strange combinations with other techniques.
- H40: Using definition lists
- H60: Using the link element to link to a glossary
- H54: Using the dfn element to identify the defining instance of a word
- G62: Providing a glossary 
- G70: Providing a function to search an online dictionary

All the things the other criteria require is moved into these techniques, such as that with a definition list you should also link the definition to the definition list, and that if the same phrase is used differently on the same page it is insufficient to only link the first occurrence. This could perhaps also be a failure.
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 11:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:17 UTC