RE: SC 2.4.5

And here's another one I didn't respond to over the weekend. My bad...

Some responses 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: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:57 pm
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: SC 2.4.5


I've been trying to finish up SC 2.4.5, aside from the issue of the
first technique. Could you review and comment on the rest of the
content?

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Crit
erio
n_2.4.5 

I have a couple of specific questions:

1. The HTML technique "Providing a meaningful name to identify frames"
is pretty thin, and I don't know enough to fill it out. Can anyone help?
Is this actually an appropriate technique.

"Thin" is right. The name attribute was discussed a bit in a thread
between Becky and Gregg and me about the title attribute for frames. I
don't think the name attribute by itself is a sufficient HTML technique
any more (if it ever was). JAWS, Window-Eyes, and HPR all support the
title attribute on the frame element, but if I rmember right they don't
all report the name attribute, even as a fallback. So I suggest we
delete this one from sufficient techniques.
2. The HTML technique "Using the title attribute of the frame element"
was written for SC 2.4.7. Does anyone see anything in the current
write-up that doesn't work for 2.4.5? Or that is missing?
In the same thread I mentioned above, I proposed moving this one to
2.4.6 Titles, headings, and labels are descriptive. It could even go to
2.4.1 if that still exists:-). But I don't think it's really appropriate
for 2.4.5 because the title attribute in this case identifies the
*purpose* of the frame more than it does the *content* of the frame.
This allows people using screen readers to navigate from frame to
frame-- i.e., you can go to the "content" frame or the "menu" frame
because you know that's what the frame is for, even if you don't yet
know the specific conten of that frame.  
3. Do we need to define or discuss "Associating the description of a
delivery unit with its reference" or " Providing a supplemental
description of a delivery unit" or are they self-evident.
I don't even see these in the How to meet doc...
4. Issue 226 asks what to do about the case where the image and text
link serve the same function but are in separate table cells. What do we
want to say about this? Is it a failure?
I consider this a failure-- it produces redundant links that double the
time it takes to listen to (at least that portion of) the page. In my
opinion, it should be legal to combine the image and the text link in
the same anchor and use alt="" for the graphic. This results in a single
link with a larger clickable area, which helps mouse users who might
find it difficult to position the mouse over a smaller link.



Thanks, Loretta

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 22:43:22 UTC