RE: Bug 704 - Inline elements.

Ok

 

But I would like to see our examples be more compelling.   This doesn't
sound like a major access issue the way it is worded.  If they are big
problems - we should describe that and how this guideline would avoid it.  

 

This is ok but seems like damning with faint praise.  (not your fault). 

 

Part of our final review - I would like to look over everything and do a "so
what".    Make sure that whatever is in here in the end is either really
important if it is at Level 1 or important if at level 2.     We'll have to
see if Level 3 is 'everything else that can be useful"  or not.   But I
think our examples should be strong and convincing.

 

What are your thoughts? 

 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Bug 704 - Inline elements.

 

Would it be accurate to say the following in the benefits section of 3.2.
 
 
 
.Some individuals with low vision, with dyslexia and who have difficulty
interpreting visual cues may benefit from additional cues in order to detect
extreme changes in context.
 
<new>
 
"Transcoding servers and intelligent user agents can be more flexible in
their
presentation of content to the user. Benefits include such things as letting
the
user adjust whether they want to allow, block, or be asked how to handle
pop-ups; notifying the user when a page transition makes significant changes
to the page layout; identifying links that will pop up a new window or go to
a different site; etc."

 

</new>