Open issues for 1.1 - a start

Hi all,

I just looked through the 9 open issues on 1.1 - here's a quick summary 
of where we stand at the moment. I've divided it into two parts, issues 
that can wait until we're through last call and issues that we should 
discuss and or propose changes and close this round.

Comments, suggestions, proposals, etc. are welcome.

-Ben

Section 1: Issues that require no action at this time (6 issues)

Issue 666 - UA support for obtaining textual descriptions and extraneous 
links
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=666>

Given current UA support for text alternatives and metadata, this is an 
advisory technique (and therefore a category 3 issue). Recommend 
postponing discussion on this issue until after the Last Call draft.

----

Issue 937 - Examples for Guideline 1.1
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=937>

Category 2 issue. Recommend postponing discussion on this issue until 
after the Last Call draft.

----

Issue 1104 - NOEMBED not widely used or recognized.
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1104>

Recommend that we revisit this issue following discussions about the 
definition of programmatically determined and what is meant by supported 
by assistive technology and what criteria a technique should meet before 
it can be considered sufficient.  We currently have a draft technique on 
use of <noembed> with <embed> but need to discuss whether this should be 
considered a sufficient technique given UA support.

----

Issue 1877 - remove deprecated elements from examples
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1877>

Similar to 1104 - Recommend that we revisit this issue following 
discussions about the definition of programmatically determined and what 
is meant by supported by assistive technology and what criteria a 
technique should meet before it can be considered sufficient.

----

Issue 1138 - Higher priority for text alternatives for non-text content?
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1138>

Needs clarification from reviewer.

----

Issue 1784 - include an example with long description
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1784>

This should be addressed by the draft technique titled, "Providing a 
long description in text near the non-text content with a reference to 
the location of the long description in the short description" 
<http://tinyurl.com/dslw5>. Recommend closing this issue once this 
techniques draft has been published.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2: Issues that require discussion/proposals (3 issues)

Issue 1800 - SC 1.1.1 - text equivalent for multimedia
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1800>

This one includes a number of questions and comments about the use of 
the word "identify" in SC 1.1.1. This SC has been updated, but 1.1.2 
still uses the term. 1.1.2 now reads:

1.1.2  For multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content, text 
alternatives identify the content with a descriptive label. (See also, 
Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.)

I think the intent for How to meet 1.1.2 is in need of revision to 
better match the changes that were made to this SC in the Dec. 16 
Editors draft and to clarify some of the questions raised in this 
issues. It currently reads:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that the function of 
non-text content, such as images used as submit buttons, is available in 
text form. In some cases, for example, whenfunctional content that is 
very complex, it is not possible for authors to describe the function of 
non-text content in a text alternative. In these cases, the purpose of 
the functional non-text content is identified in the alternative.

----

Issue 1801 - SC 1.1.3 - content intended to create a specific sensory 
experience
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1801>

Includes suggestions to add "only" (non-text content that is only 
intended to create a specific sensory experience) and raises issues 
about whether the definition of "specific sensory experience is 
sufficiently clear.

Recommendation: Consider proposals and review definition for clarity.

----

Issue 1802 - SC 1.1.4 - add example to clarify
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1802>

The reviewer writes:

1.1.4  Non-text content that is not functional, is not used to convey 
information, and does not create a
specific sensory experience is implemented such that it can be ignored 
by assistive technology.

Don:  Here, an example would be perfect after the word "technology," as 
in "such as in alt=" ".  As written
now, not one developer I know will know how to implement this since none 
of them know what assistive
technology will and will not ignore.

(Note, in  his submission, Don explains that he has reviewed WCAG only, 
without consulting the How To
Use documents, since he believes that this is the way many developers 
will operate, and that it is
important that WCAG be self-sufficient and clear on its own.)

Recommendation: Close this issue with the following comment:
	Examples are provided in How to meet 1.1.4.

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 00:02:59 UTC