- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:37:18 +0100
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
Hi Gregg, Firstly, I agree with your proposal to remove L1SC1from 3.2. On 13/09/05, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote: > Change of context should not be confused with change of content. Small > changes in content, such as an expanding outline, do not change the context I also agree that a change of content is different from the current definition of change of context. This is relevant to my success criteria (When any component receives focus, it does not cause a change of context), where focus given to a menu item may cause a sub-menu to be displayed. That's obviously a good thing, and shouldn't violate this success criteria. I do have concerns about change of content with remote scripting techniques (which seems to be the new black), as that can cause accessibility problems. This is more relevant for L2SC3: Changing the setting of any input field does not automatically cause a change of context. If a change of content isn't the same as a change of context in this instance, then we're saying that it's okay to dynamically update portions of a page in a way that could be missed by some assistive technologies. I wonder if it would be worth adding another success criteria (possibly level 3) that deals with changes made using remote scripting, as I can't see anywhere else in the guidelines that covers this? Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:37:27 UTC