Issue #330: Proposed wording for 3.1 L1SC2 and L2 SC 2 and 3

The proposed language below is what I've come up with after exchanges
with Jason and Gregg yesterday.  My goals are:
1. To replace the phrases "programmatically located" and
"programmatically determined" with phrases that are easier to
understand; 
2. to write criteria that apply to content; and
3. to write criteria that don't depend entirely on technologies that
don't yet exist, since this would prevent meeting the implementation
test
 
The introduction of the term "standard method" comes as a result of my
conversation with Gregg, who was concerned that we might create an
impossible situation for AT vendors if we don't specify a standard
method for meeting these criteria.  Obviously this has implications for
techniques and technology-specific checklists.
 
So, here's proposed language
<begin proposed>
Guideline 3.1, Level 1, SC 2
2. The meaning of abbreviations and acronyms is provided in context or
through markup, scripting, or other standard methods that interact with
user agents.

</end proposed>

 

For Guideline 3.1, Level 2, SC 2 and 3:

<begin proposed>

2. The definitions and pronunciations of all words in the content are
provided in context or through markup, scripting, or other standard
methods that interact with user agents, . [I]

3. The meaning of all idioms in the content is provided in context or
through markup, scripting, or other standard methods that interact with
user agents. [I]

 

</end proposed>

 
John


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>