Re: waicard9

Dan,

Its looking better, and I have several comments:

1.  Can we put a revision control number on the cars.  Very small print and
possibly in on corner.  I fear that as these circulate and revisions are
made, we may not know which version of which we are speaking.

2.  Use CSS for layout and style.  I could not agree more with this.
Suggest,
"Use CSS for layout and style where practical", or
"Use CSS for layout and style or accessible HTML"

3.  Last item, wish we had room to say something about also testing on voice
web browsers and screen readers.

We are not at HTML 4 yet and we have a bridge gap to fill until such time.
Again I think this sends mixed signals to the user community.   How many
people use CSS?  Not many that I see.  Seems we are suggesting that it needs
CSS to be accessible.

Going to work, if there is discussion, please copy me at work.

/rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 2:36 AM
Subject: waicard9


>
>Let's try to get consensus on the card within EO today, so that Judy
>can send it to WAI IG and GL for review asap.
>
>
>Changes from version 8:
>
> Image Maps Use client-side MAP and alt text for hotspots.
>
>goes back to
>
> Image Maps Use client-side MAP and text link for hotspots.
>
>I agree with Charles that it's better to cover both alt text (whether
>in AREA or in new MAP model) and redundant link text in one sentence.
>
>
>
> Multimedia: Provide captioning and transcripts of audio,
> descriptions of video, and accessible versions when
> non-W3C inaccessible formats are used.
>
>Since there is room for clarity, let's try to use it.
>
>First, let's not equal non-W3C and inaccessible, as the Java
>accessibility effort are real.
>
>The way Len had phrased it: "accessible version of non accessible
>formats", it sounds as if we're asking people to use an accessible
>version of a format, not a page.
>
>I also think the current wording covers the use of OBJECT (i.e. not
>necessarily need a separate page).
>
>We could use "when other inaccessible formats are used" instead of
>"non-W3C", but since the guidelines mention non-W3C, I think we can
>use it as well.
>
>To Alan: HTML is not is only accessible format, in fact, it can be
>inaccessible, as the other tips prove.
>
>To Charles: are you really suggesting we use "etc" ? Very few people
>would know what to swap this etc for IMHO. We need to be more
>specific, without including the whole guideline 30 lines of text.
>
>
>Watching us working on this, I haven't seen a clear need for numbering
>the tips, so I removed the counter and just used dot for each tip in
>this version. I think it looks better. Tell me what you think.
>
>Complete version with image of 9 point layout at
>  http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/waicard9.htm
>
>
>Let's waicard10 be our last version !
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 February 1999 06:43:18 UTC