- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:35:16 -0400
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg, Good comments! I made most of these edits, a few I have marked as open issues and will be adding them to the open issues list. I also have comments on a few of your suggestions. ITEM 1 >WORDING IN THE INTRODUCTION > >3. A final point on this introduction is that we have to be careful not to >imply that someone needs to follow all of the checkpoints in order to >satisfy the guideline. If the checkpoints give alternatives, we somehow >should combine them and word them so that it's clear that when you do one of >the two alternatives you have satisfied the issue. Again, we can talk about >this more when we talk about specific checkpoints. I have documented this as an open issue. >ITEM 2 > >"Principle 1: Ensure that all content can be presented through any single >sensory channel or a combination of sensory channels that may be required by >the user (e.g. all information only through vision or only through hearing, >etc.)" > I did not take this wording since Marti had made the comment about the use of "sensory channel" and I agree that it can be a bit hard to understand. Hopefully my proposed wording captures your ideas. >ITEM 3 > >Under Guideline 1.1 we talk about talking about a text equivalent for all >non-text. I would like to somehow get in here the idea that this needs to >be electronic text. Text by itself cannot be translated into any form but >electronic text can. Again, since we are talking about very general >principles, I would like to eliminate right off the bat anyone thinking that >putting a painted image of text on the screen solves the problem. Remember >that we are talking about many different formats and not just talking about >html. There maybe a wide variety of technologies in the future used to >representative information. The key here is that it be electronically >readable. Therefore, suggest that 1.1 be changed to. > >"1.1 provide (an electronically readable) text equivalent for every non-text >(auditory or graphical) component or multi-media presentation". I did not make this edit. I would like to know more about the "wide variety of technologies in the future used to representative information." I am concerned that these are all electrons and that "electronic text" is not the best clarification and actually may confuse people. >ITEM 4 Added as open issue. >ITEM 5 open issue. wording for current WCAG 1.3 is in process. we'll see how that goes. >ITEM 6 - 11 done. >ITEM 12 > >Priorities. open issue. >ITEM 13 - 22 done. Thanks, --wendy -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative madison, wi usa tel: +1 608 663 6346 /--
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2000 10:33:04 UTC