- From: Chris O'Kennon <chris@vipnet.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:24:50 -0400
- To: "'Bill Mason'" <w3c@accessibleinter.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I was also a little confused about Checkpoint 1.1 in the same manner, but I was in the process of re-reading it to see if I missed something in the definitions. Chris O'Kennon Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/ VIPNet Portal Architect www.myvirginia.org ______________________________________ "When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other." -----Original Message----- From: Bill Mason [mailto:w3c@accessibleinter.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:19 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Comments on WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint 1.1 Minimum success criteria: I cannot fathom point 2 after reading it several times. If the ''non-text content...can not be expressed in words" but success is defined as having "a descriptive label [that] presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content", then you've expressed the content in words. Example 1 has a right arrow icon whose text equivalent is "Next Slide" but the ALT tag for the image reads only "Next". Checkpoint 1.2 Minimum success criteria: Point 2 exempts news and emergency information from captioning, yet below in Example 2 a news story about an emergency is captioned. Checkpoint 1.5 Level 2 success criteria: Point 2 calls for abbreviations and acronyms to be identified "where they occur". Later, checkpoint 4.3 will call for identification only in the first instance where they appear. Example 2: W3C is an abbreviation, not an acronym. At the top of the draft in the copyright line, W3C is correctly tagged <abbr>. General observation: Many checkpoints have a statement from the author asserting that the document has been reviewed etc. as a step for Level 2 success. I am unclear how claiming a certain level of conformance will apply if such a statement is not applicable. Example: I meet level 3 in all criteria except Checkpoint 3.5. This checkpoint at level 2 requires me to state that the user is warned of essential inconsistent or unpredictable responses. Now, if there are no such responses in the site, I have nothing to state. And therefore without a statement (as I currently read the draft) I cannot claim level 2 success. Now, what level of conformance can the site claim as a whole? Level 3 because 3.5 does not apply to me? Level 1+ because I have not achieved level 2 in this checkpoint? I believe this whole area needs to be clarified in the draft. Bill Mason Accessible Internet w3c@accessibleinter.net http://www.accessibleinter.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:24:38 UTC