Re: Please prepare proposals for our next Team B meeting

Hi Loretta,

On 26/05/06, Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> I'd just like to encourage everyone to write up at least a few proposals
> before our meeting on Tuesday. Even if you don't have great confidence that
> your proposed solution is the right one, if we can capture the issues and
> relevant background in the database, it will make our discussions more
> productive.

My initial thoughts for the items for me are included below.

I'll be at today's meeting, but will only be able to stay for an hour
and 15 minutes.

Best regards,

Gez




Comment #465
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=465

Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
4.2.1 also suggests that the accessible version be the primary
version, with a link to the inaccessible version. In reality that is
never the case, nor would you likely be able convince a
client/developer to use an HTML version of their splash page in favour
of a fancy Flash version

Proposed Change:
Ideally there should be reciprocol links between the two versions.


Initial thoughts:

The success criterion doesn't require that the primary version meet
all level 1 success criteria. The "how to" document states, "Note that
this is a fallback option and is not preferable to making the content
itself accessible".

Suggest closing with polite note that it's quite reasonable for
accessibility guidelines to prefer content be made accessible.

===============================


Comment #466
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=466

Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Wording of 4.2.1 is easily misinterpreted.

Proposed Change:
"Where content is presented using a technology that is not in the
baseline, or is in the baseline but does not meet level 1 success
criteria, provide reciprocol links between that version and another
version of that same content, with equivalent functionality, that does
meet level 1 success criteria."

Initial thoughts:

I don't really follow this comment. Guideline 4.2.2 deals with content
that is not included in a baseline.

===============================


Comment #540
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=540

Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Though for public content, guideline 3.1.5 would apply, for non-public
content, such as an online course aimed at a professional audience,
there should be no requirement that it be "lower secondary" .

How will evaluators measure language level. Perhaps using a FOG index
for English. How would they assess across languages, where a FOG index
is not valid? Would lower secondary be too high when an audience is
from a third word country, where reading levels tend to be much lower?
There has to be some acknowledgement of the audience reading the
content. I thought I had suggested in a previous review of a WCAG 2
draft, that audience be worked into the baseline, though I can't find
the specific reference at the moment. I understand that would
complicate things significantly. If not included in the baseline,
there does need to be some way to define the acceptable level of
language for the intended audience.

With regard to including the audience in a measure of readability, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability

Proposed Change:

It might read something like "Where information is aimed at a non
specific audience, for which reading level is unknown....use lower
secondary..."


Guideline says:

When text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower
secondary education level, supplemental content is available that does
not require reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary
education level.

Initial thoughts:

I agree that it's difficult to test. We can't add audience to the
baseline, as the baseline can only specify technologies - unless he's
using the term generically? Gunning Fog and Flesch-Kincaid can be used
for English, but not sure about other languages.

============================



Comment #545
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=545

Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Guideline 4.2.1

This guideline does not read like a guideline (same with 4.2.3), is
not immediately clear what it means without reviewing the HowTo, and
can be interpreted in different ways (i.e. ...may [also] be, or ...may
[instead] be...). I interpret it first as meaning I can include a link
from the accessible version to the innaccessible version. In fact it
should be the opposite that is true (and I'm sure based on the howto
that is what was intended), including a link from the innaccessible
version to the accessible one.

Proposed Change:

Ideally there should be reciprocol links between the two versions.


Initial thoughts:

I Agree the language is confusing. I think we need to understand the
intent of the clause to fix it.

===============================





-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 16:53:00 UTC