- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:46:43 -0500
- To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20060111105005.00a8c3b8@mailserver.nist.gov>
Per my assignment, attached as html file is a very rough draft of "sufficient" technique for SC 2.2.4. I wanted to get comments/feedback before I attempt to update the wiki. Some questions: (1) What is the specific scope of this technique, in terms of the origin of the timing requirement? What about timing requirement that are imposed by sources other than the author vs. those timeouts created by the author of an activity working in a technology supporting that activity? (that is, is there a clear distinction between these two categories or is the distinction somewhat subjective?) (2) How is the measure of successful accomplishment of this technique made? Just in terms of the design or in terms of the actual implementation of the activity? An activity could be designed for no timed interactions, but in implementation could actually have timed interaction requirements imposed (re: (1) previous) ). If a design has a "preview" or "intermediate simulation" status with no timed interaction present, would that be enough to claim success? If a plan is formed for an activity, without any implementation, does that meet this SC? (3) What is the specific definition of an "activity" in this context? "Design" of an activity? (4) This technique is Level 3, but are there performance/security issues that would make it difficult or impossible to develop a design to meet this SC? Is this approach generally in the right direction? Comments and feedback welcome.. Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST
Attachments
- text/html attachment: Tech224-1.htm
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 14:47:08 UTC