- From: Lee Roberts <uce@roserockdesign.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:07:24 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <NFBBJHFEOLAGEICMIMBPEEKDCEAA.uce@roserockdesign.com>
OPEN ISSUE: WCAG 1 TO WCAG 2 I'm curious, should we rely upon the Passive sentence structure to cover the conversion from WCAG1 to WCAG2? Correct me if I'm wrong, this issue will be a part of the finished document. As such passive sentence structure would indicate that our work is not yet done even though we have submitted and published a completed work. My recommendation would be: "The conversion from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 created a need to map out the differences and provide an easy path to follow. The WCAG group realized the importance of easy transition and worked extremely hard to make it easy for developers and policy makers to understand." OPEN ISSUE: Definition of SITE I recommend that we define a site as, "A body of elements within a domain claiming conformance to WCAG2." If we go with the current suggested definition we will run into the area that one person or group has claimed conformance while hosting their site on one of they many hosting services out there that prevents them from maintaining full control over their site. Such a site would be one on Geocities, Tripod, Homestead, Free Yellow, etc. They may be able to attempt a claim at conformance, but the hosting service would quickly remove that possibility. Additionally, a news article developed by the WAI aware author may meet the current suggested definition, while the page the information is provided on may not. Who wins at that point? Is the content going to win because the author met the WCAG requirements or does the page cause everything to lose? Based upon a semantic view the content would win its argument of compliance, but the page would still be unusable. Suggested definition For the purposes of these guidelines, a site is that body of web content which the conformance claim encompasses. -------------------- For the perceivable future I would recommend that we use perceivable simply because it breaks down to a word people can understand. While it may be perceptible for people to generate a perception of what we are talking about it is more plausible to perceive that people will understand the word perceivable. The remainder fo the words are very acceptable. OPEN ISSUE - 5 MAGIC WORDS PERCEIVABLE / PERCEPTIBLE OPERABLE NAVIGABLE UNDERSTANDABLE DURABLE Thanks, Lee Roberts
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 13:15:37 UTC