RE: 2.4.2 Issues

Loretta wrote:
<blockquote>
David's proposal uses delivery units. Using perceivable units was my
thought, after reading the issue description. But I don't understand the
intricacies of these relationships, so it may be better just to to with
David's wording.
</blockquote>

I agree, unless someone has time to check the definition of "perceivable
unit" and confirm that it's something authors can control.

Anyone want to take an action to review the definition of "perceivable
unit" and send a note to the list by Monday (6 February)?

Thanks,
John 



"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 


-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 1:26 pm
To: John M Slatin; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: RE: 2.4.2 Issues

David's proposal uses delivery units. Using perceivable units was my
thought, after reading the issue description. But I don't understand the
intricacies of these relationships, so it may be better just to to with
David's wording.

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: RE: 2.4.2 Issues
> 
> The problem with "perceivable unit" (as I understand it) is that 
> authors can't control what happens when a single delivery unit is 
> rendered as multiple perceivable units, so ther emight not be a way to

> satisfy the SC if we used David's wording  .
> 
> I'm not completely certain that I understand "perceivable unit"
> properly. The term comes from the Device Independence WG's Glossary.
> Could someone check it and se if we can determine whether perceivable 
> unit is or isn't under authorial contrl? (We may also need to check 
> with someone from DI WG to be sure on this one.)
> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> "Good design is accessible design."
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Director, Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, f 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 Loretta Guarino

> Reid
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:50 am
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: 2.4.2 Issues
> 
> 
> 1. Issue 1825:
> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1825
> 
> Recommendation: Close this issue saying that 2.4.7 haw been changed to

> remove "page or other".
> 
> 2. Issue 1741
> http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1741
> 
> Recommendation: adopt David Macdonald's proposal, which clarifies that

> the SC only applies at the delivery unit level.
> 
> <current>
> 2.4.2 More than one way is available to locate content within a set of

> delivery units where content is not the result of, or a step in, a 
> process or task. </current>
> 
> <proposed>
> 2.4.2 More than one way is available to locate each delivery unit 
> within a set of delivery units where the content of the delivery unit 
> is not the result of, or a step in, a process or task.
> </proposed>
> 
> More of the issue might be addressed if we used "perceivable unit"
> instead of "delivery unit". Would there be problems if we change this
> to:
> 
> <proposed>
> 2.4.2 More than one way is available to locate each perceivable unit 
> within a set of perceivable units where the content of the perceivable

> unit is not the result of, or a step in, a process or task.
> </proposed>

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 19:29:20 UTC