RE: Please review proposals for 818 and 858

Hi David,

Re 863:

An important issue here that I think has been missed in the response is
that the SC allows that "variations in presentation of text can be
programmatically determined" instead of making the *information being
conveyed* by that variation be programmatically determined.

Joe is correct that every specification of colour (or any other
presentational specification) is programmatically determinable. For this
to be sufficient means it would be impossible to separate content and
presentation. The user groups that benefit from this separation include
people who require particular rendering of text to access the
information (this might be colours; font family, style, size; spacing;
line height; justification; etc). This means the importance of italic
text indicating required fields will be lost for users browsing the web
with their own display specifications that do not include italics, or
that at least ignore the author's specifications. It is therefore
important to avoid conveying any information by presentation alone
(whether it is visual or not).
This separation requirement is reflected in the overarching guideline.

Vision Australia will not be supporting a success criterion that allows
or requires a dependency on the author's presentational specifications
to access information.

Some of this was covered in an earlier related discussion but I'm not
sure what came of it since I couldn't attend the subsequent meetings at
that time. See the thread starting with Becky's at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamc/2006Sep/0035.html.

Best regards,
Sofia

____________________________

Dr Sofia Celic

Assistant Manager
& Senior Web Accessibility Consultant

Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions
P: +61 (0)3 9864 9284

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:18 PM
To: 'Andi Snow-Weaver'; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: RE: Please review proposals for 818 and 858


Sorry folks... I mistakenly posted this to the GL (replied to a Team C
survey to the GL rather than a Team C internal email)

I've taken  shots at 1080
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=10
80

and 863


http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=86
3

Cheers
David MacDonald

access empowers people...
        ...barriers disable them...

www.eramp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:15 PM
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Please review proposals for 818 and 858



I have updated 818 [1] and 858 [2] per our discussion on Monday.

Michael has the survey about ready to go so if you have any problems
with
the examples I chose, you can just comment on the survey.

[1]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=81
8
[2]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?i
d=85
8

Andi






________________________________

<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed 210 Spam messages and set aside
112 Later for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  www.ellaforspam.com

Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 05:22:32 UTC