RE: Draft of SC 3.1.4 and related techniques - please review

I did substantial restructuring of the sufficient techniques section. In
some cases, I changed the technique (or at least the title of the
technique). 

I moved the discussion of expansions vs explanations into a general
technique; I split the technique that only provides the definition for
the first occurrence from the one that provides them for all
occurrences; and I edited which techniques were applicable in those two
cases.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:37 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Draft of SC 3.1.4 and related techniques -
> please review
> 
> Thanks, Loretta.
> 
> When I reviewed the How to Meet doc in the WIKI, the only
> new content
> appeared to be in the Techniques section. Did you update
> the Intent
> section as well? (Maybe JAWS isn't picking this up?)
> Other comments below.
> 
> 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: Sunday, February 05, 2006 9:30 am
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: Draft of SC 3.1.4 and related techniques - please
> review
> 
> 
> I have a draft available of How to Meet SC 3.1.4:
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Mee
> t_Success_Crit
> erio
> n_3.1.4
> 
> I had to rework the How To document, and in some cases I
> have added
> restrictions or explanations that may go beyond our common
> understanding. So please review what I've done with it, as
> well as the
> specific techniques:
> 
> General techniques:
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Providing_
> the_expansion_
> or_e
> xplanation_of_an_abbreviation
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Providing_
> the_abbreviati
> on_i
> mmediately_following_the_first_use_of_the_expanded_form_wi
> thin_the_deliv
> ery_
> unit
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Linking_to
> _definitions
> [jms] The example about the definition of "modulo" was
> surprising-- it
> makes sense in the context of a general technique about
> linking to
> definitions, but I was thinking about abbreviations and
> acronyms. This
> is one of the hazards of sharing techniques across
> multiple SC. Not sure
> how to deal with it-- probably needs to be addressed on a
> case by case
> basis.
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_a_Gl
> ossary
> Example 3 is about searching a medical dictionary;
> probably shouldn't be
> in the technique on Using a glossary. (Could be used in an
> HTML
> Technique on <link rel="glossary" ...>
> 
> I think it was in this There's a note to the editors in
> this technique
> about idioms and jargon. There is some material on this in
> the 30 June
> working draft at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-
> 20050630/meaning-idioms.html
> 
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Searching_
> an_on-line_dic
> tionary
> Still sounds rough-- more like notes toward a technique.
> Doesn't seem to
> use the template...
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Using_a_di
> ctionary_casca
> de
> Ditto. I think this is content pasted in from the 30 June
> WD.
> 
> HTML techniques:
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Abbreviati
> ons
> The examples don't seem quite consistent with the
> description or with
> the definitions of acronym and initialism that took up so
> much time and
> space on the list. "WWW" canbe marked as an acronym in
> HTML 4.01 and
> XHTML 1.x (Example 1). KISS (Example 3) is an acronym, not
> an initialism
> (according to the definitions...) because it can be
> pronounced as a
> word. "ESP" for Extrasensory perception" is an initialism.
> (Personally I don't care! But we went to a lot of trouble
> over this on
> the list and on many calls, and there are definitions in
> our Glossary,
> so...)
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Supplement
> al_Meaning_Cue
> s
> I think this one would have to be listed as an Advisory
> technique,
> because as of February 2006 this supplemental info isn't
> available to
> people using screen readers. So it should only be used in
> conjunction
> with another technique that *is* sufficient.
> 
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Glossary_P
> age
> The example is a little cryptic. Also, Is this another
> technique that
> has to be used in conjunction with something else in order
> to be
> sufficient? (What do authors have to do so that users can
> find terms
> that appear in the Glossary? WCAG links to every
> occurrence, for
> example. Is this strictly necessary? Or would a link to
> the Glossary
> itself be sufficient?)
> 
> 
> Thanks, Loretta

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 01:58:58 UTC