Re: CAREFUL CRITICAL review of the Annotated Checklist

At 07:37 2/06/2006, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
<blockquote>
The annotated checklist gives us (and everyone else when we release it) a 
very easy way to evaluate our success criteria and proposed techniques.

I would like people from each Task force to take the success criteria that 
they are assigned and
- look over the annotated checklist very carefully.
- pretend you are a harsh critic. ­ Rip up what we have.  Find the holes.

Releasing this can make our guidelines understandable and usable ­ but that 
can be overshadowed if we have obvious holes in it as well.
Even if you know it is solid ­ if you think it could look like it has holes 
­ or could be misunderstood ­ point that out.

Do your worst. Please do it immediately.
</blockquote>

In my previous mail I forgot to mention that the User Agent and Assistive 
Technology Support Notes for technique H30 [1] are confusing if you read 
them before example 2: the notes talk about support for alt and title 
attributes on the img element, but the technique is about link text. Maybe 
something like the following should be added after the first sentence of 
the current text of the notes: "This also applies when images are used 
instead of (or in addition to) text inside links."

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html#H30 - 
Providing link text that describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements

Regards,

Christophe

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:08:47 UTC