RE: Notes on 2.4 survey results

I'm making the editorial changes suggested in the approved surveys. 

In his comments on "General technique for SC 2.4.3: Skip to main
content", Ben asks: 
"Also in procedure, I think we should clarify first few - can we put a
number on this? if it's fifth, does it pass?"

Do we want to pick a number? 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org [mailto:public-
> wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:34 AM
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: 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 19:06:23 UTC