RE: 9 of 24 issues

Comment re Issue 1407, GL 3.1 Example 7

Example 7 is about a "grandfather" who makes a Web page about his hobby,
collecting musical instruments.  He provides visual illustrations of the
instruments and links to a sound clip to show what each one sounds like.

The reviewer expressed concern that we shouldn't encourage people to
violate copyright.

I would suggest (a) turning the nice old grandfather into a professional
of some sort, say a music historian or an ethnomusicologist; this way we
avoid seeming to regulate personal Web pages.  And (b) I would suggest
"in the public domain" rather than "publicly available," to avoid any
potential ambuity about what it means for something to be pubcly
available.  (In theory, someone could post a copyrighted recording
without getting the appropriate permissions, and it would then be
"publicly available"; of course that's never happened before...).

Issue 1448: The reviewer asks that we remove deaf people from the list
of users who benefit from simple language

A couple of comments: the phrase "simple language" no longer appears in
GL 3.1 or its SC, so this *could* be treated as OBE (Overtaken By
Events).
(Several other people who are deaf have told me privately that they wish
we'd delete this benefit also.)
I like Wendy's proposal to refocus the benefit on people with reading
disabilities and close the issue.

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 3:56 PM
To: Wendy Chisholm; public-wcag-teamb@w3c.org
Subject: RE: 9 of 24 issues



Wendy, thanks so much for doing this.  

Here's a comment on issue 1406.  First, here's what you've given us:

<blockquote>
  In addition we need to determine 
    if all instances of "a word used in a restricted manner" must be
marked or 
    only the first occurrence.
    Thanks for your input.
    
Roberto:
I think that we should mark all the occurrences and expand (with title
attributes) the first one.
</blockquote>

I agree that the example is most closely related to GL 3.1 L3 SC5, and
that the photos, video clips, and animation that it mentions can
appropriately be considered as supplemental content per the SC.

But in the present wording of the example, the "brief explanation"
wouldn't count as a summary-- it's an explanation of the phenomenon of
volcanic eruption, not a summary of the content of the page in question.
(This would be easy enough to "fix"-- just change "brief explanation" to
"summary."  But I don't think that's necessary-- the content would pass
the SC because it provides graphical illustrations to supplement the
text content.)

-- I think I may have created a version-control problem when I sent the
updated draft of the Guide for GL 3.1 L3 SC5.  The draft I sent on 12
September has a subtitle, "Examples of readability in English text,"
immediately following the heading "Examples of GL 3.1 L3 SC5."  That
subtitle doesn't appear in the version of the Guide published on 30 June
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20050630/meaning-supplement
s.html).

That's a small editorial issue-- I think I had originally included the
subtitle to remind myself and the WG that it would be good to have
similar examples for languages other than English, and I'd still like to
do that.

The more important issue, though, is that the example about Mt. Pinitubo
illustrates a different approach to the problem of difficult text: it
shows how text that triggers the requirement to provide supplemental
content can be rewritten to satisfy GL 3.1 L3 SC5 without providing
supplemental content.  

So I would prefer to keep both examples (at least in the Guide) and to
find some acceptable way of indicating more clearly what they're
examples of.

Actually, though, the more carefully I look at that example of
readability in English text, the more I think it isn't a good example
after all.  According to my note at the end of the first version,  the
description of Saturn wouldn't trigger the supplemental content
requirement-- it comes in with a grade level of 9.9, which would mean
that it just barely falls within our definition of "lower secondary
education level."

I'm giving myself an action to come up with an example of text that does
trigger the requirement, with a rewrite that wouldn't trigger it. I'll
try to do that by the end of the day tomorrow (Tuesday).

Sorry this is so long. Thinking out loud.

John
"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Chisholm
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 1:00 AM
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3c.org
Subject: 9 of 24 issues


Hello all,

it's taking longer than expected to get through all of the 
issues.  Attached are proposals to close 9 (out of 24) issues.  I'll
send 
the rest on Monday and create a survey.

Best,
--wendy

Received on Monday, 19 September 2005 21:21:53 UTC