Guideline 3.2 (consistent-behavior) Issues

Issue #767 - includes a number of ideas for technqiues that could be developed for this guideline. Since none of these techniques seem to be high-priority, I propose that we close this issue and capture the ideas in it in the "boneyard" section of our guideline 3.2 page.

Issue #931 - issues around how changes in context relate to scripting and what makes the programmatically determinable. Since we've removed the level 1 SC on changes in context being programmatically determined, no longer use the phrase "programmatically identified" and have updated the definition of "change of context," I believe we can close this issue.

Issue #1172 - suggests that "context" is not an appropriate word because it talks about something displayed to a user and has no relationship to a meaning (context). Also suggests that "context" is difficult to translate. Since this issue was raised, the benefits section has been completely rewritten. Suggest that we close this and check with the commenter about whether these revisions and the updates to the definition of change of context address the issue.

Issue #1408 - asks whether this applies to navigational as well as content components. This seems to be addressed by our resolutions to include a definition for "same relative" order. Suggest that we close this issue.

Issue #1410 - issue was raised against the November 2004 public draft. Suggest that we close this issue since it seems to be primarily about two criterion that are no longer in the draft.

Issue #1411 - suggests that images may have slightly different meaning depending on context or audience. We should be able to clarify what is meant here in the guide doc for this criterion, but do not yet have a draft guide doc for this SC.

Issue #1458 - raised against the November 2005 public draft. Suggest that we close this issue since the SC about presenting components in different visual positions or reading orders has been removed and hte level two item on same relative order has been revised.

Issue #1510 - This issue proposed a rewording of the level 1 SC for 3.2 to, "A mechanism is available to give automatic notice of any extreme change of context." Propose that we close this as overcome by events.

Issue #1517 - proposes revising level 3 success criterion 1, "Graphical components that appear on multiple pages, including graphical links, are associated with the same text equivalents wherever they appear" to read, "Text alternatives for non-text content that appears on multiple delivery units are consistent." I suggest that we adopt this wording as it allows more flexibility in how the text-equivalents might be used by not requiring the "same" text equivalents."

Issue #1522 - suggests that 3.2 should include a criterion on increasing font size. Suggest that we close this issue since this is a user agent issue and does not seem to relate to this guideline.

Issue #1568 - this issue suggests that because the glossary defines a change in focus as a change in context, this SC doesn't make sense. Suggest that we close this issue since the SC is clear that the change in context should not occur as a result of receiving focus and that we make sure this is clear in the intent section of the guide doc for this SC.

Issue #1569 - assumes that enabling or disabling a sub-form is a change of context and asks whether "change of content" is a more appropriate term. In our discussions, we had not considered this to be a change of context and have revised the definition to no longer include "user interface controls." Suggest that we close this issue pending resolutions to the definition of change in context and clarification about changes in content that would not be considered changes of context vs. complete changes of content that would.

Issue #1570 - suggests reordering the level 2 SC for consistency. Suggest that we accept this proposal and close this issue.

Issue #1571 - suggests replacing "page" with "delivery unit" in L3 SC1. Suggest that we accept this proposal and close this issue.

Issue #1716 - Suggest that we close this issue as this success criterion has been removed.

Issue #1747 - suggests that the level 2 criterion about changing the setting of input fields should be level 1 since users can become very confused if the context changes by the mere action of changing the setting of an input field (JavaScript enabled select boxes that redirect on the first selection is a serious issue for keyboard users). Suggest closing this issue by explaining that the problem mentioned here would be covered at level 1 by guideline 2.1 and clarifying in the intent section of this SC that changes in context should not be confused with changes in content.