RE: Action item: new wording for Checkpoint 5.2 minimum success c riterion #1

Lisa, it's my understanding that WCAG 2.0 does permit use of Javascipt under
two conditions: (1) it's documented, and (2) that the content meets *all*
checkpoints at minimum level or better.  Thus if the example you offer fails
on other checkpoints or other criteria, there cannot be a conformance claim
with respect tot hat content.
 
Is this the way others understand what we're saying?
 
John
 
 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu <mailto:jslatin@mail.utexas.edu> 
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il] 
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:12 am
To: 'john_slatin'; 'WCAG List'
Subject: RE: Action item: new wording for Checkpoint 5.2 minimum success
criterion #1


Can you clarify two points for me,
 
1, does this mean that according to WCAG 2 you can use JavaScript if it is
documented?
 
2, what about a page like http://space.ort.org.il/nagish/
<http://space.ort.org.il/nagish/>  were you have framesets embedded in
framesets and the second set of framesets are written by a JavaScript - how
can the assistive technologies get to the titles?
 
a code snippet follows:
 
if ( RestoreTopFrame == 1 )
document.write('<frameset rows="21,*" name="MainFrame" border="0">')
else
document.write('<frameset rows="91,*" name="MainFrame"  border="0">') 
document.write('<frame class="clsFrameTitle" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" id="idTopBar" name="TopBar"
src="frame_title.asp?sp_c=424450463" frameborder="0" scrolling="NO"
noresize>')

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

http://www.UBaccess.com

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of john_slatin
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 8:03 AM
To: WCAG List
Subject: Action item: new wording for Checkpoint 5.2 minimum success crite
rion #1



Current wording for Checkpoint 5.2, Success criterion #1, minimum level: 


	1.      a list of technologies and features, support for which is
required in order for the content to be operable, has been determined and is
documented in metadata and / or a policy statement associated with the
content.

Proposed new wording 
1. A list of the technologies and features required to operate the content
is associated with the content through metadata and/or a policy statement.

-- Explanation: 
I've tried to make this criterion more understandable by (a) straightening
out the syntax and (b) shortening the sentence.  I deleted the phrase "has
determined and is" on the grounds that the list of required technologies and
features can't be provided until someone has determined what those
requirements are.

What important nuances have I missed? 

John 


John Slatin, Ph.D. 
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning 
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 
email  <mailto:jslatin@mail.utexas.edu> jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu> http://www.ital.utexas.edu