- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:23:11 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > yes, judy asked people to provide feedback on that page as can be seen rich > provided feedback on the 11/04 Fair enough. I've added the following feedback: Requirement 1 states "A programmatic mechanism to reference a specific set of structured host language content, either internal or external to the document containing the described image." I see no reason to treat referencing an external resource as an accessibility requirement. Requirement 4 states "An explicit provision that accessing descriptive content, whether internal or external to the document containing the image, does NOT take the user away from the user's position in the document containing the image where the verbose descriptor was invoked." I think this is supposed to mean that after consuming the long description, the user should be able to easily continue consuming the main document from where they left off. If so, it could be more clearly stated. Requirement 9 states "Ease of use". I'd have thought this would go without saying, much like security. In general, I don't think these requirements should be translated into MUST or SHOULD UI requirements in conforming UAs, but rather into suggested UI, as I think the markup spec should be dictating semantics not UI. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 14:23:39 UTC