ACTION-421 Re: 6.4 and accessibility

Thanks Anil.

Change: 
"For visual user agents, these interactions MUST be presented in a way 
that makes it impossible for the user to view or interact with the 
destination web site that caused the danger situation to occur."

to:
These interactions MUST be presented in a way that makes it impossible for 
the user go to or interact with the destination web site that caused the 
danger situation to occur.





From:
"Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
To:
Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com
Cc:
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Date:
04/24/2008 06:11 PM
Subject:
Re: 6.4 and accessibility




For the non visual rephrasing, nobody seems to mind. Thomas and Anil, can 
you make it so? 

And nobody can explain the header recommendations? So should we remove 
them? 



From:
Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM
To:
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Date:
03/28/2008 05:34 PM
Subject:
6.4 and accessibility



It seems possible to rephrase this part of 6.4.4 to not be just visual:

"For visual user agents, these interactions MUST be presented in a way 
that makes it impossible for the user to view or interact with the 
destination web site that caused the danger situation to occur."

could instead be:
These interactions MUST be presented in a way that makes it impossible for 
the user go to or interact with the destination web site that caused the 
danger situation to occur.

For the header recommendations, I could use a bit more context (I'm only 
about two pages into Serge et al's paper; I'm hoping to finish it on the 
trip out to the RSA conference): 

"For user agents with a visual user interface, headings of these warnings 
MUST include words meaning "caution" or "warning". The headings of these 
warnings MUST be the locus of attention."

Why the headings? Is it _just_ about locus of attention? Are there other 
things about the headings that make them special?