- From: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:50:55 -0600
- To: "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "TeamB" <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Additional comments below. And regrets for today. John "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 john_slatin@austin.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 Slatin, John M Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:25 AM To: Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB Subject: RE: Updated Team B Agenda for 13 Feb 2007 - one more issue added A note on LC 838: <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual .php?id=838 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=838"> @@Response to commenter: We have added "descriptive" to SC 2.4.3 and moved it to level 1. SC 2.4.5 addresses descriptive headings and labels, and it remains at level 3, since headings </blockquote> Is this accurate? I see that "descriptive" has been added, but the current internal draft (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/) shows SC 2.4.3 at L2, not L1. I support moving this to L1. It's extremely helpful, and it's just not that difficult to implement. John "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 john_slatin@austin.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 Loretta Guarino Reid Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:19 PM To: TeamB Subject: Updated Team B Agenda for 13 Feb 2007 - one more issue added My apologies that this is going out so late! 18:00 UTC 10:00 AM Palo Alto 1:00 PM Boston http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=8386:00 PM England, Ireland 3:00 AM (Jan 24) Japan Bridge: +1.617.761.6200 Passcode 92248# irc.w3.org port 6665 #wcag-teamb Agenda: 1. Sorcha's conformance proposals: (Sorcha, the following items don't appear to have proposals; are these the correct numbers?) http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1014 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1049 Will need input from the group in order to complete issues: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1040 Will support material be provided for WCAG 2.0 for a non-technical audience? http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1210 2. SC 1.4.5 (and 1.4.6) rewording: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 per cent and down to 50% without loss of content or functionality. This is good. 3. Level change proposals: SC 2.4.3: move to level 1 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=838 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=839 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1052 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1289 Agree. SC 2.4.4 : move to level 1 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=473 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=712 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=872 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=944 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1056 SC 2.4.5: keep at level 3 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1052 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1289 OK. SC 2.4.6: move to level 1 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=628 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=942 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1053 SC 2.4.7: keep at level 3 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1054 OK. SC 2.4.8: keep at level 3 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=712 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=838 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=839 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=944 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1056 OK SC 3.2.5: keep at level 3 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1068 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1144 OK 4. Consider Principle 3 level change requests: SC 3.1.3 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=945 I've heard people say that moving 3.1.3 to L2 would effectively bar technical documentation and other professional communication at L2. I don't entirely agree: WCAG 2.0 (for example) links to the glossary from each instance of words and phrases used in an unusual or restricted way. But I'm not sure we've caught every idiomatic expression. And content in some fields would become extremely difficult to read if *all* specialized vocabulary had to be defined either inline or via linking, even when the terms are well known in their respective fields. Jargon is typically a barrier for people who are not in the field where the jargon is used-- e.g., the jargon of literary history may be problematic for chemical engineers but not for litearary historians. And both chemical engineers and literary historians are likely to provide definitions when introducing new terms or re-defining existing ones-- at least when they are writing for their professional peers. So I think this one can stay at L3. But we need to be clear about the rationale: placing the SC at L3 *does not* mean that the issue is not important. We acknowledge that it is vital for some audiences and some purposes. For example, specialized information intended for non-specialist readers *should* follow this SC even if only A or AA conformance is claimed (i.e., this would be an advisory technique in such cases) SC 3.1.4 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=1059 I could live with this at L2. SC 3.1.5 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=569 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i d=887 The WG discussed this many times. All agree that writing as clearly and simply as possible for the context (as per WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.1) is highly desirable. But it is not testable in that form. The WG felt that placing this SC at L2 imposed too heavy a burden on content developers. The WG also discussed setting a lower threshhold, but this was the one that achieved consensus at the face to face in Brussels (June 2005), a decision that was ratified in two successive teleconferences. We might consider adding a sentence to the end of the Intent section in Understanding GL 3.1, e.g., "Content should be written as clearly and simply as possible." This could then be noted in the response to reviewers. The response to 569 should point the reviewer to Understnading GL 3.1-- the Intent section acknowledges some of his concerns. It should also point to the new SC 1.4.5/1.4.6 about font scaling. And we might consider adding an advisory technique here about using left-justified text and/or avoiding text that's justified *both* left and right. There could also be an advisory CSS technique about setting line-height to improve legibility by opening up space between lines.
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 16:51:30 UTC