Notes on 2.4 survey results

Hello again,

Here's the email mentioned in the agenda for Tuesday-- summarizing the
results from the most recent survey on GL 2.4 issues and techniques

4 unanimous or unanimous with editorial comments)
1 item back to Team B with clear instructions; will need to be reviewed
again by people who submitted comments to make sure we've addressed
their concerns
4 items need discussion-- possible solutions are provided 

Unanimous/unanimous with editorial (4 items)
*	SC2.4.2 Table of contents
*	General technique for SC 2.4.3: Skip to main content
*	SC 2.4.8 technique on breadcrumb trails (14-1), comments re
modifying Description (Michael) and link-separator characters
(Christophe)
*	HTML technique for link element and navigation (all comments
editorial)


Comments clear; take back to team update and get review from people who
submitted comments to make sure the changes address their concerns(1
item) 
SC 2.4.2, 2.4.8 Site map (9-5-1)

Clarify that site map does not have to include links to all pages on the
site and that all site maps must be accessible (see GV's comment about
the various diagrams, etc.). Address Tim's comment re testability of
"important" 

Needs discussion so comments can be addressed (4 items) 
*Delete SC 2.4.1 (8-6-1)

Possible solution: Keep SC 2.4.1, Team B to write suggested techniques
and failures. Use comments from Michael, John, and David to update
Intent section of How to Meet SC 2.4.1. Do a new survrey when How to
Meet and techniques and failures are ready for review.


Michael provides detailed rationale and useful suggestions re using <a>
and other elements specifically for navigation; also useful failure
techniques Ben agrees with Michael

Alex wants discussion before deciding
Andi thinks we could resolve Michael's concern by adding <a> as
sufficient technique under 1.3.1, but this doesn't address Michale's or
John's concern about other technologies or the failure technique(s)
Michael suggests 
David votes to keep, offers additional failures and rationale

*Reword SC 2.4.3
Possible solution: Accept proposed wording after replacing "are
available" with "are repeated" as per multiple comments. Ask Christophe
to clarify his comment on the <nl> element in XHTML 2.0.



*2.4.3 Skip links visible ((9-3-3)
Possible solution: make clear that this is one of several *sufficient*
techniques, not a required technique Commentors (Ben, Alex, Andi, Becky)
don't want to outlaw the "traditional" 1x1 gif with skip to main
content. 

*Proposed wording for SC 2.4.5 (8-0-7)
Possible solution: Does John's proposed wording make SC 2.4.5 more
acceptable? The SC would read <proposed> Each programmatic reference to
another delivery unit or to another location in the same delivery unit
is programmatically associated with text describing the destination,
unless the description would violate the purpose of the link or
invalidate the activity presented by the content. </proposed> 
item back to Team B for further work. Ben thinks the technique proposed
for deletion might be sufficient in some cases, e.g. if technology
doesn't support programmatic association of link with descriptive text .
GV, Alex, Andi  reject or move to L3.Tim move to L3. 
David proposes adding sufficient techniques discussed on list (Don
Evans, John Slatin).




"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/


 


"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

Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 16:34:09 UTC