W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Questions about Evaluating Web Sites...

From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:37:04 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jean-Marie D'Amour" <jmdamour@videotron.ca>
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Regarding Jean-Marie's comment about JAWS and the DEL attribute:

Thank you for letting me know that your version of JAWS doesn't recognize 
the HTML del markup.  That is the first time I have ever used the del tag 
in a Web document and I had never tested it with a screen-reader.


At 24/05/02 08:25 AM, Jean-Marie D'Amour wrote:
>Hello Chuck,
>In fact, in the virtual PC mode, the only attribute that JAWS mention is 
>underline, all others are normal.
>It is a limitation for the Web because in Word this function works fine.
>A 07:49 2002-05-24, Jean-Marie D'Amour a écrit :
>>Hello Chuck,
>>JAWS is unable to read the del element and the configuration that ask 
>>JAWS to say atribute changes is inoperant with the del visual apperance.
>>Jean-Marie D'Amour
>>A 22:07 2002-05-23, Chuck Letourneau a écrit :
>>>You can view the copy of the "Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility" 
>>>draft that I captured for editing at: http://www.starlingweb.com/wai/eval1.htm
>>>In some places I have used the del element of HTML to show replaced 
>>>text. If this is annoying (or inaccessible) I will remove it. I have not 
>>>highlighted new text.
>>>I have started working from the change log entries 
>>>[http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/impl/changelog.html] for the eval 
>>>doc.  As I expected, the editing raises further questions.
>>>1. For instance, I made the changes for the edit suggested by this entry 
>>>in the change log:
>>>         3.2.2 more diversity in tool examples [20011022]
>>>         [20020410] remove the "as above" in comprehensive,  and repeat 
>>> it explicitly in comprehensive review (re-cite the external ref list);
>>>I think the change (i.e. repeating the list) does improve 
>>>comprehension.  However, similar constructs (i.e. references to lists in 
>>>Preliminary Review) appear in and  Question: if we 
>>>explicitly repeat the list of tools/steps for 3.2.2, shouldn't we repeat 
>>>them for these points as well?
>>>2. Regarding 2.2.3, the change log states
>>>         clarify purpose of changing the font size (2.2.3) [20011030]
>>>         [20020410] (1) [done/cl/20020523:clarify _will_ the font size 
>>> change on the screen accordingly; and is the page still usable.
>>>I interpreted the point in this way: "use browser controls to vary 
>>>font-size: verify that the font size changes on the screen accordingly; 
>>>and that the page is still usable at larger font sizes."  Comments?
>>>3. Regarding 2.2.5:
>>>         questioning what printing page accomplishes (2.2.5) [20011030]
>>>         [20020412] it is useful for some people, so we will leave this 
>>> in, however it's not required and you don't have to use it.
>>>My concern isn't with the change log comment (which I agree with). The 
>>>point currently reads "change the display color to black and white (or 
>>>print out page on black and white printer) and observe whether color 
>>>contrast is adequate."
>>>Question: Isn't black and white (i.e. 2-color) display or printing 
>>>unrealistic or extreme?  Would this be better as "change the display 
>>>color to gray-scale (or print out page on a gray-scale printer) and 
>>>observe whether color contrast is adequate." ?
>>>4. Regarding 2.2.6 - I made the change suggested in the change log:
>>>         clarify without the mouse (2.2.6) [20011030]
>>>         [20020412] agreed, change to without using the mouse
>>>I think this point has further problems, even after the suggested 
>>>change.  I think the following wording would improve it: "without using 
>>>the mouse tab through the links and form controls on a page, making sure 
>>>that you can access all links and form controls, and that the links 
>>>clearly indicate what they lead to and form control labels clearly 
>>>identify their purpose."  Actually, I think the latter part of this 
>>>point should be a separate bullet... the availability of links and 
>>>controls is a separate issue from link and label clarity.
>>>Chuck Letourneau
>>Jean-Marie D'Amour M.Éd.
>>CAMO pour personnes handicapées
>Jean-Marie D'Amour M.Éd.
>CAMO pour personnes handicapées
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 08:36:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:32 UTC