Issue summary for 4.2

Here is an issue summary for Guideline 4.2. Please raise alternate
proposals for any you disagree with; otherwise we'll go to survey. I
hope it's readable, it's difficult to make these usable in plain text
emails. Michael

Issue summary for 4.2 http://tinyurl.com/dbcpu 

1665 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1665 suggest
separating 4.2 into two separate Guidelines

Appears to have been done, referenced SC are now in 4.1.

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment.

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

1666 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1666 4.2 L1 SC
1 An interesting circular argument

Regarding 4.2.2
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#accessible-alternatives-
plugins, commenter says if a Web site doesn't meet all the Level 1
success criteria but it provides an alternate version that does, then
this is saying the primary site complies.

This doesn't say the primary site complies (it obviously does not or
this SC is not applicable), it says the site as a whole conforms to
WCAG, since content that does not conform is supplemented by content
that does conform.

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment.

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

1667 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1667 4.2 L1 SC
1 supposed to be implied that the alternate must be available from the
original version?

Asks if 4.2.1
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#accessible-alternatives-
level1 means alternate content must be directly available from the
inaccessible version.

This is what the SC requires. It is up to techniques to guide how the
alternate content needs to be available, which can be content
negotiation or a link, but it must be available in some way "from the
same URI".

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment.

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

1668 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1668 4.2 L1 SC
2 says nothing

Regarding the baseline clause in 4.2.2
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#accessible-alternatives-
plugins, this issue says "to say that something applies both to content
that uses X and content that doesn't use X is to say nothing."

Explict mention that this SC applies to content outside the baseline is
important here, because most other WCAG SC apply to content inside the
baseline. It is important that the SC communicate "even though content
is not in the baseline and therefore not subject to most WCAG
requirements, you must do the following".

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment

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

1669 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1669 4.2 L1 SC
2 does it lump together to things that seem utterly disparate

Questions why 4.2.2
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#accessible-alternatives-
plugins lumps keyboard trapping and flashing into one SC rather than
two, and why it repeats requirements that are covered in other SC.

The reason these two requirements are provided here is because content
not in the baseline does not have to meet most of the WCAG SC. This SC
applies specifically to content outside the baseline and provides
requirements that even non-baseline technologies must follow. These
requirements are to avoid the creation of "active inaccessibility"
problems that could render content within the baseline inaccessible,
even though it conforms to WCAG. The two requirements are combined into
a single SC in order to have only one SC along the lines of "in spite of
the fact that content is not in the baseline...". It seems clear that
incomplete understanding of the role of baseline led to this comment,
and that the "understanding baseline" documentation needs to address
that. However, I do not see any changes that need to be made to the SC
itself.

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment, and add a discussion of this issue
to the "understanding baseline" documentation.

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

1670 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1670 4.2 L1 SC
2 we have to be clarify

This says we have to be clarify that the requirement in 4.2.2
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#accessible-alternatives-
plugins not to trap the keyboard does not mean that every page has to
have a "close this window" link, as it is sufficient to rely on user
agents to provide the ability to close their window.

4.2.2 is intended to apply to keyboard-trapping plugins and does not
apply to pop-up windows, for which browser controls are sufficient.

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment.

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

1714 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1714 relative
measures for fonts should be a level 2 SC

Proposes a SC for relative measures for fonts.

For the most part I think the WG has decided this is a user agent issue.
However, there is recent activity in the bugzilla entry proposing some
actions that I do not believe have been completed.

Proposal: KEEP OPEN and survey group on actions: 1) add to Understanding
this SC, 2) propose a L2 SC, 3) propose a combined SC with legible fonts
under 1.4.

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

1776 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1776 Accessible
alternative requirement is redundant

Says that 4.2.1
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#accessible-alternatives-
level1 is redundant with a note in the Conformance section of the
introductory material http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/intro.html#N102E0.


The conformance notes refer to the role of content negotiation in
applying a conformance claim. 4.2.1 requires alternative content
available from the same URI, which may be made available via content
negotiation. However, the conformance section declares that the
"default" content available via content negotiation is the content to
which conformance claims apply. A Failure technique for 4.2.1
http://tinyurl.com/7oywr describes the problem of inaccessible content
being the default served. Therefore I believe all the requirements are
covered.

Proposal: CLOSE with above comment.

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:06:40 UTC