Re: WCAG Curriculum update

At 04/05/99 07:58 PM , you wrote:
>On to the checkpoints (this may take a while <g>). I will go straight
>through the checkpoints without jumping to the examples although I did
>notice that when I went to the examples and tried to jump back my
>natural instinct to click on the arrow didn't work; had to click on the
>"To checkpoints..."  

CPL:: will ponder this, but inter-set navigation is a bit problematic.

>Also I'm not sure the link in 1.1 (which duplicates
>the link in 1.1a) makes sense.
CPL:: Fixed	

>I wonder if 1.1b's "including symbols" might have a disclaimer to cover
CPL:: I agree.  It is done.

>I don't understand 2.2 having both P2 & P3?  Also I hope we've made
>certain that the use of color in the instant example (the Priority
>blocks) qualifies under this checkpoint.  Once again it's not *just* the
>contrast that causes problems.

CPL:: I reread the explanation for the lower priority on color controlled
by style or markup (priority 3 for text) and it makes sense to me.  If the
user can control the color, then it is not a significant problem.  Since
you can't control the color as easily in an image, then the responsibility
falls to the graphic designer to choose good color contrast.  

CPL:: I arbitrarily chose three colors to quickly distinguish the priority
ratings visually... not to convey a message with those color choices.  You
have not come right out and said my choices were bad, but you were hinting
(Yes... I caught the hint <grin>).    I would be happy for someone with a
better color-sense than I to choose some appropriate foreground/background
combinations that are in the 216 color Netscape safe set.

>I cannot accept 3.1 as Priority 2 since the use of PageMaker or PDF as
>"pictures of text" is completely contrary to the idea of a blind person
>being able to use it.  I don't understand the ">" in front of 3.4 or the
>grammar of the checkpoint. OH! it's a coding error, there's a link there
>that doesn't show up right.

CPL:: I don't recall the GL discussions on this point in any detail, but
the decision must be documented somewhere in the archives or minutes.
Perhaps we will have to revisit this item in version 2 of the guidelines. 

CPL:: coding errors fixed.

>I gather Cps for GL 5 & 6 didn't "make the cut" yet.
CPL:: there were an incredible number of bugs in the Checkpoint slide
set... all have been identified and corrected.

>7.1 "...avoid causing the screen to flicker." might be "...allow no part
>or all of the screen to flicker."

CPL::  you may be right, but I ain't changin the Recommendation's wording
(at this stage, anyway).
>10.3 has a suspicious leading "<" which probably indicates a coding
>Font size change from CP 10 to CP 11.
>I've never used frames so I don't know what controls associated with
>labels means.

CPL:: Are you are referring to Checkpoint 12.4?  It doesn't have anything
to do with FRAMES.  It does have to do with FORMS.  Ok... in this case I
broke my own rule about tampering with Rec-text and I added "(in a FORM)"
to the checkpoint to make it clearer when taken out of context.  Feel free
to suggest this to the GL group as an editorial change for the Rec.
>I don't like 14.2.  It just seems to go too far.

CPL::  I don't like what a herd of raccoons and/or skunks has done to my
front lawn while digging for grubs during the night.  Ooops... I guess this
is the wrong forum for my remark too. <grin>.  
>That's that.  I'm not sure about techniques/examples but will try to
>take a look, at least a proofreader's look, later.

Starling Access Services
 "Access A World Of Possibility"
    Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983

Received on Friday, 7 May 1999 23:07:45 UTC