RE: Updated Nits [Re: Finalizing an Issue-204 CP]

I did all except #7, because #7 is a direct quote from another document.

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Janina Sajka' [] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:25 PM
To: Cynthia Shelly
Cc: John Foliot; 'Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis'; 'Laura Carlson'; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'; 'Joshue O Connor'; 'Judy Brewer';; 'Richard Schwerdtfeger'; 'James Nurthen'; 'Leif Halvard Silli'; 'Jonas Sicking'
Subject: Updated Nits [Re: Finalizing an Issue-204 CP]

This updates my previous list at:

Use this list instead.


1.)	 The word 'visibility' is mispelled in the first paragraph of
Summary. Offending sentence begins:
"They can already do this with CSS display:none and visisbility:hidden, ..."

2.)	In the summary you say:
	"... so this change will correct the hidden attribute
	section so it is in
	   accord with the ARIA specification and ARIA functionality."

	   	It's a stylistic nit, and I'm not about to fall on any
		sword, but might you rather have:

"... so this change will correct the hidden attribute section to bring it into conformance with the ARIA ..."

3.)	The indefinite article is missing from a sentence in the
explanatory text below Example 2 in the Rationale section. The offending sentence currently reads:
"For visual users, the text box followed by a looking glass icon is well-known visual pattern for a search function."

	Add an 'a' ahead of "well-known" so that it reads "... icon is a
	well-known visual ..."

	Also, the commas in this paragraph are not needed.

4.)	I see four nits in the explanatory paragraph below Example 3.

	a.)	The explanatory text begins: "This example shows a variation of Example 3"
		Do you actually mean "of Example 2" ? As in "a variation
		of the former example?"
	b.)	The word 'accessibility' is mispelled in the thred
	sentence, currently "... via the accessibiltiy API, ..."

		c.)	Further in that same paragraph there's a
		grammatical number disagreement where the text currently
		"Since the screen-reader user does not use a mouse, and
		does not trigger the mouseover, he gets an experience
		that works for him, and the sighted users gets one that
		works for her."

	Should say 'user' (singular) to match 'her' (singular.

	d.)	The last three words of this paragraph, "... and not
	all." are, imo superfluous. I suggest this would read better
	without them.

5.)	There's a repeated sentence--the same sentence ends the
paragraph following #4 above, and begins the one immediately above "Feedback from Browser Implementers." This repeated sentence reads:
"Because authors rarely run their content through conformance checkers, authors are likely to point at @hidden content from aria-describedby and aria-labelledby whether or not we forbid them from doing so."

	I believe you want to drop the first instance and keep the

6.)	There's a missing 'i' in the word 'addition' immediately below
the Maciej citation, "In addtion ..." Or, is this still part of the quote from Maciej, in which case we shouldn't correct the error? I can't tell--unless I go read the Wiki source!

7.) Immediately above the quote from UAIG 5.7.2 there are several references to the ARIA Working Group. Strictly speaking, of course, there's no such thing. We have an ARIA Task Force in the PF Working Group.

8.)	Missing 'i' in two occurances of 'accessibility' in a para that starts:
	"UAIG says that hidden elements are not exposed via the
	accessibiltiy API, ..."

9.)	A little further down, a missing 'i' in the word "addition," in
a para that starts:
"In addtion, UAIG Section 5.5.1. ..."

10.)	And still a bit further down, a transposed 'it' in the phrase
'accessibility API' in the first enumerated item below a para that starts:
"When aria-labelledby and aria-describedby reference an element that IS NOT hidden, ..."

11.)	Mispelled "implementation" in the last sentence of the paragraph
that begins:
"Name calculation is what is at issue in this CP."

12.)	In Details, in the first "Add" section, the paragraph
immediately above the one that begins:
"CAPTION: , and <figcaption>. This technique should not be used ..."
appears to end with a comma, and not a full stop.

	We want a period there.

13.)	In the "Risks" section, a missing 's' in the word "existing" and a missing
comma (or perhaps better a long dash) immediately before that word? The sentence in question reads:

"There have not been many reports of problems with this the exsiting <label> and aria-labelledby functionality with CSS display:none and visibility:hidden, ..."



Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	
Linux Foundation

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 05:06:54 UTC