RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3

At 01:18 27/10/2005, David MacDonald wrote:

>I think that brings us back to the issue I brought up at the face to face.
>The term "label" is a very charged word because it is an HTML element and
>that is not what we are talking about in the guidelines.

The guidelines are meant to be technology-indpendent, so the implication is
that our use of the term "label" (which is abstract) is much wider than
HTML's label (which is an element). In my opintion, we only need to point
out the difference between the abstract concept and the concrete element,
rather than finding another word.

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe

>(...)
>Cheers
>David
>
>.Access empowers people
>             .barriers disable them.
>
>  www.eramp.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Li, Alex [mailto:alex.li@sap.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 6:09 PM
>To: David MacDonald; Ben Caldwell; Gregg Vanderheiden
>Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
>Subject: RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3
>
>Not sure how to word it, but make sure people don't try to put label on
>non-text content AND use text alternatives.  We are only asking to do
>one not two labels. -A
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:01 PM
>To: Li, Alex; 'Ben Caldwell'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
>Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
>Subject: RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3
>
>Perhaps the addition is not necessary and could be explained in the
>guide
>doc but I would add it in the SC for clarity.
>
>"...and have consistent text alternatives."
>
>A lot of people will never read the guide doc and I think the extra 5
>words
>in the SC will be worth the space they take up.
>
>Cheers
>David
>
>
>.Access empowers people
>             .barriers disable them.
>
>  www.eramp.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Li, Alex
>Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:21 PM
>To: Ben Caldwell; Gregg Vanderheiden
>Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
>Subject: RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3
>
>
>Text alternative is how you label non-text content.  So, the original
>should already include text alternative.  We are fine with original sc
>if we include techniques. -Alex
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Caldwell [mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:10 PM
>To: Gregg Vanderheiden
>Cc: Li, Alex; public-wcag-teama@w3.org
>Subject: Re: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3
>
>Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >
> > OK
> > Here goes
> >
> > Combined form is...
> >
> > 3.2 L2 SC3.  Components that have the same functionality in multiple
> > delivery units within a set of delivery units are labeled consistently
>and
> > have consistent text alternatives (if any).
> > (Guide to 3.2 L2 SC3)
> >
>
>Looks pretty good. Do we need to include "and have consistent text
>alternatives (if any)."? I'm not sure we need to make any changes to the
>
>SC.
>
>We can clarify in the guide doc that the use of consistent text
>alternatives is how you'd meet this for functional non-text content if
>need be (ex. situation a: text-based components; situation b: non-text
>components).
>
>-Ben
>
>--
>Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
>Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 11:31:39 UTC