RE: Issue LC-636 - need feedback before I draft a response

Just a point of information.   This is what it used to say -- and it was
changed to the current wording so that it didn't say the information was
programmatically determined.   I don't remember who brought it up - but the
idea was to have equivalence.   If required fields were in bold then it was
important that the bold items be findable.  But the idea was that each one
did not need to say that it was required.  

I'm not expressing it well -- but I think you get the idea.  

At any rate... just fyi.    Can't remember who the people were who brought
it up.  Maybe they can give the examples again that caused the group to
agree to change to current wording.   


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Sofia.Celic@nils.org.au
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:08 PM
> To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue LC-636 - need feedback before I draft a response
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes!!
> 
> Regarding:
> Should this SC be made more useful by
> requiring that the information be programmatically determined 
> rather than just the variations in text?
> 
> Sofia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |---------+-------------------------------->
> |         |           "Becky Gibson"       |
> |         |           <Becky_Gibson@notesde|
> |         |           v.ibm.com>           |
> |         |           Sent by:             |
> |         |           public-wcag-teamc-req|
> |         |           uest@w3.org          |
> |         |                                |
> |         |                                |
> |         |           30/06/2006 05:14 AM  |
> |         |                                |
> |---------+-------------------------------->
>   
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------|
>   |                                                           
>                                                                    |
>   |       To:       public-wcag-teamc@w3.org                  
>                                                                    |
>   |       cc:                                                 
>                                                                    |
>   |       Subject:  Issue LC-636 -  need feedback before I 
> draft a response                                              
>         |
>   
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issue LC-636 suggest changing the wording of SC 1.3.4 FROM:
> Information that is conveyed by variations in presentation of 
> text is also conveyed in text, or the variations in 
> presentation of text can be programmatically determined.
> 
> TO:
> Information that is conveyed by variations in presentation of 
> text is also conveyed in text, or the information can be 
> programmatically determined.
> 
> The rationale for the change is that the information is what the user
> needs not the change in presentation.   While I tend to agree, I think
> this would make the SC much stricter than intended.  If the 
> variations in presentation can be programmatically 
> determined, the assistive technology can present that 
> variation to the user - thus providing the same information 
> (that the text is styled differently) to persons with
> disabilities.   What that variation in presentation means, however, is
> left for the Web author to define and explain to the user. 
> For example new vocabulary words are listed in bold,  
> required fields are bold, etc.
> 
> I, however, think the change is one we should consider. Ths 
> is a level 2
> SC and thus should require some additional work by the Web 
> author.   If we
> accept this change, the current sufficient technique of Using 
> semantic markup to mark emphasized or special text [2] would 
> no longer be valid.
> The failure, Failure of SC 1.3.1 and 1.3.4 due to using CSS 
> to create variations in presentation of text that conveys 
> information without also using the appropriate markup or text 
> [3] would need to be changed as well.
>   We could add a Dynamic Web content Accessibility technique 
> of using the role="required" attribute as a sufficient 
> technique for required fields (although it might have to be 
> advisory until the Dynamic Web Content
> Accessibility roadmap is more widely supported.   The existing, G117:
> Using text to convey information that is conveyed by variations in
> presentation of text [4] technique would still be sufficient. 
>   Another
> sufficient technique would be a modification of the existing, 
> technique,
> G14: Ensuring that color encoded information is also 
> available in text [5] .
> 
> What does the group think?  Should this SC be made more 
> useful by requiring that the information be programmatically 
> determined rather than just the variations in text?  I didn't 
> want to spend time drafting an answer until I got some 
> feedback - I suspect there are reasons that I am not 
> remembering for making just the variations in presentation 
> programmatically determinable.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_all.php#636
> [2] ww.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html#H49
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html#F2
> [4] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html#G117
> [5] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html#G14
> 
> 
> 
> Becky Gibson
> Web Accessibility Architect
> 
> IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
> 5 Technology Park Drive
> Westford, MA 01886
> Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
> Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 30 June 2006 05:01:57 UTC