W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Checkpoint 2.1.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:14:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
cc: Authoring Tools WG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, Unagi San <unagi69@concentric.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906161412370.17203-100000@tux.w3.org>
I like it. It also seems to remove the need for 2.4.3 - allow the user to
edit alternative content.

So I propose that for the next draft we adopt Grogory's wording for 2.1.3 and
drop 2.4.3


On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:

  aloha, all!
  i would like to object on the strongest possible terms to the wording of 
  Checkpoint 2.1.3 as it appears in the current (10 June) draft:
  --- begin current formulation of checkpoint 2.1.3
  Allow the author to identify (in an accessible way) all elements and
  properties in the document that are available for editing. 
  --- end checkpoint 2.1.3
  my objections are:
  1. the use of the parenthetical phrase (in an accessible way)
  	the purpose of the Authoring Tool Guidelines is to assure the 
  	accessibility of the tool and the content it creates...  thus, 
  	accessibility should never be reduced to a parenthetical aside...  
  	after all, we are the Web Accessibility Initiative, not the Web 
  	(Accessibility) Initiative...
  2. the wording of the parenthetical phrase is extremely unclear.
  	what exactly does quote (in an accessible way) unquote mean?
  and, so, i humbly resubmit a variation on my iteration of Checkpoint 2.1.3:
  --- begin GJR's proposal
  Allow the author to display an editable equivalent for each element, 
  object, and property which is available for editing.
  --- end GJR's proposal
  while i am open to suggestions as to how my proposed checkpoint can be word-
  smithed--particularly the substitution of the word "any" for "each",
  although i prefer the latter--i am adamantly opposed to the current
  iteration, which reduces accessibility to a parenthetical aside...
  NOTE: i originally had the phrase "editable textual equivalent" in my
  re-worded and re-proposed iteration of 2.1.3, but deleted it, as the word 
  "textual"--at least in this context--belongs in the techniques section.
    ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with 
    one's own opinion.     -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
                  Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
    Camera Obscura:           http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
    VICUG NYC:          http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html
    Read 'Em & Speak:   http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 1999 14:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:28:21 UTC