- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:20:18 -0400
- To: <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
Hi Becky - I'd suggest this issue just be put on hold. I had been assigned 715 [1] and found a lot of similar issues, including 558 that has already been put on hold. Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=71 5 -----Original Message----- From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Becky Gibson Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:15 PM To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org 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 14:20:36 UTC