- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:17:12 -0500
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Wendy Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3c.org>
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