- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:19:37 -0400
- To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Issue 581: May need some discussion. Change of context is different from a change of content. WCAG2.0 defines in Glossary "change of context" and "content". Some additional definitions of "context" I found were "discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation", "the set of facts, circumstances, and conditions which surround an event", "the items in scope with respect to the current position in the document", "the circumstances relevant to something under consideration", "the part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning", and "the circumstances in which an event occurs (a setting)" . This SC does not specifically disallow activities involving change of content, but in general, do we need to more explicitly delineate/separate the concepts of content and context in WCAG? Issue 597: Reword the note to take account of the concern expressed from deaf interests? Maybe delete the part of the note beginning with "An audio version.." and ending with "other combinations."? I don't completely understand what this part adds to the note. Or maybe replace this part with "For example, many deaf people understand sign language better than written language, because sign language is their mother tongue. With sign language, texts above upper secondary education level are more understandable for deaf people." (words from the "proposed change")? Issue 602: Needs discussion. What are some techniques (or examples) of how to create content at a lower reading level than the original material, but which conveys the same meaning as the original material? To show that our approach is not "unrealistic" (as the commenter alludes), we need counterexamples as to how in practice this can be done while preserving the same functionality or meaning? Furthermore, the word "alternative version" may imply a different level of functionality, so perhaps another word can be used? Thoughts? Comments? Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2006 20:20:49 UTC