RE: thoughts/comments on Issues 581, 597, 602

RE 597
I think we might have already changed that NOTE based on another comment.
Or Addressed a comment somewhat like this one.   You might relate this note
to that one and see if our resolution there doesn't already address this
concern. 

See 591,  595,  


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Boland
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:20 PM
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: thoughts/comments on Issues 581, 597, 602
> 
> 
> 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 Sunday, 4 June 2006 00:41:51 UTC