- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:41:49 -0600
- To: "Becky Gibson" <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
- Cc: <bfree@magma.ca>
Thanks for forwarding this, Becky. David writes: <blockquote> I think the intent of the GL is to provide more than one way to each </blockquote> David's proposal makes sense. I believe we say that authors can satisfy this SC by providing (for example) a site map *or* a search engine *or* a table of contents in addition to conventional links (e.g., in a navbar). All of these things help userJohns find and move to specific delivery units. "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 -----Original Message----- From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Becky Gibson Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:57 AM To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org Cc: bfree@magma.ca Subject: 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/Overvie w.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 20:42:02 UTC