Fw: Team B: bug #1741 SC 2.4.2

I am forwarding this to Team B for David since it relates to Guideline 2.4 
(which team b is responsible for).


Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com

----- Forwarded by Becky Gibson/Westford/IBM on 01/04/2006 11:51 AM -----

"David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca> 
01/04/2006 10:02 AM

To
"'Michael Cooper'" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, 
<Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>, <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
cc

Subject
Team B: bug #1741 SC 2.4.2






Hi Michael Becky, or Andi?could you get this to the Team B mailing list, 
because I?m not on the list of Team B participants. Thanks.
 
HI Team B members
 
I had an action item to address bug #1741which is directed at SC 2.4.2 and 
present my recommendation of rewording to Team B. The recommendation for a 
rewording and Gregg?s comments about them are below.
 
David MacDonald
?Access empowers people
            ?barriers disable them?
www.eramp.com

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:02 AM
To: 'David MacDonald'
Subject: RE: recommendation for bug #1741 SC 2.4.2
 
Very nice David. 
 
Please send to the group doing 2.4 (unless that is your group). 
 
This looks very nice.  Don't let it get lost in our flurry. 
 

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
 
 

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of David MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:16 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: recommendation for bug #1741 SC 2.4.2
 
I had taken an action item to address bug #1741present my recommendations 
to Team B. The bug is here:
 
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1741
 
and to suggest possible rewording of the SC, or other solution if 
necessary.
 
The SC is here:
 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051216/Overview.html#navigation-mechanisms-mult-loc
 
The Bug shows that the SC as it is currently worded introduces confusion 
about whether the author must provide more than one way to access each 
delivery unit in a set, or provide more than one way to navigate to *all 
content* which could also include each subsection of a delivery unit (i.e, 
the 3rd sentence in paragraph 2 of section 1)
 
I think the intent of the GL is to provide more than one way to each 
delivery unit, rather that providing more than one way to navigate to 
every bit of content. 
 
Recommendation 1
 
<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>
</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>
 
I think this would clean up the confusion. I would then close the bug and 
get back to the person filing the bug saying that we have clarified the 
language of the SC, and that we have overcome the possibility of the 
author providing two inaccessible solutions in GL 2.1, 2.4.1
 
Bug 1741
 
Guideline 2.4 - Level 2 - 1: What if a single way is accessible for all? 
Would 
be silly to require the addition of another method of locating content 
when 
there is only one paragraph in an authoring unit where each sentence is 
provided by a different delivery unit. Also creates the possibility of 
providing two different ways of locating content yet none are usable for 
visually impaired users. The requirement should be that one or more ways 
of 
locating content must be provided in order to ensure barriers in locating 
content is minimized. Very difficult to word but the way it is now seems 
like 
a huge loophole to us. [TWG]
 
?Access empowers people
            ?barriers disable them?
www.eramp.com

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:56:54 UTC