- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:58:17 -0500
- To: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
- Cc: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Kevin,
I agree with the comments about what the "user is thinking".
Not testable in any way. That said:
Le 10 nov. 2011 à 19:51, Kevin Smith a écrit :
> I would recommend rewriting 7 as:
> 7. The user visits a site. There is a weather widget with no obvious branding or clear indication that the widget is not operated by and part of the site that they are visiting. The user clicks on the widget to scroll forward and see tomorrow's weather. The widget is at all times a third party.
Would you clarify what do you mean by "no obvious branding or clear indication".
because that would not work either with accessibility requirements, if you meant
visual cues for the branding. Our documents would have a bad review from
Protocols & Formats Working Group by excluding some categories of users.
What about something such as
7. The user visits a site. There is a weather widget with no
accessible (in a wcag way) indication that the widget is not
operated by and part of the site that they are visiting. The
user clicks on the widget to scroll forward and see
tomorrow's weather. The widget is at all times a third
party.
--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 19:59:01 UTC