- From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:24:06 -0500
- To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFAAB9519B.B48C63AB-ON8625708F.006BB84A-8625708F.00701209@us.ibm.com>
Here's an update based on comments received last week. [1] I'm not sure what to do about Christophe's comment. Clearly the working group assumed a display, a keyboard or keypad, and optional audio when writing the guidelines. We can propose that the success criterion be modified as Christophe suggests: use "the same modality that is used for labels, prompts and other guidance in the form/interaction" instead of "text". But it makes it even more abstract and difficult to understand. Doesn't text still apply even for VoiceXML applications? If a developer uses "text" messages, they can be delivered in either synthesized speech or as actual text for deaf users. If the developer provides the messages in recorded audio, then he or she would need to provide a text alternative for deaf users. Looking at the techniques proposed from the Technique harvest, this one seems to belong under GL 3.1: - Writing understandable 401 or 404 pages And I'm not sure what to do with this one: - Provide a guess when desired page is not found "smart 404" (See attached file: Guide to Guideline 2_5 Level 2 Success Criterion 1.htm) [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/teamc-2/results Andi
Attachments
- text/html attachment: Guide_to_Guideline_2_5_Level_2_Success_Criterion_1.htm
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 20:24:17 UTC