RE: Proposal: Delete SC about contracted words

Hello Gregg, 

I'm sorry but I do not follow your reasoning. The item I propose to delete
is level 3, not level 1 (The meaning of contracted words can be
programmatically determined). I argue that it's already covered mostly by a
level 2 item and completely by that level 2 item in combination with another
level 3 item. I'm not talking about level 1 items at all. 

I totally understand that you can't delete level 1 items because they're
covered by level 2 or 3 but that's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing to
delete a level 3 SC because it's covered by a level 2+3. By the time you get
to level 3, all of the level 2 items will already be covered, right? So the
meaning of all words, including contracted words, can already be
programatically located. I don't see why we need a level 3 item to say the
meaning of contracted words can be programatically determined, since you can
already locate the meaning and another level 3 item says to provide
additional information if the intended meaning is not the first. 

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: zaterdag 29 mei 2004 20:06
> To: 'WAI-GL'
> Subject: RE: Proposal: Delete SC about contracted words
> 
> 
> I do not want to argue for keeping SC1.   
> 
> But it is important to understand how the levels work.
> 
> A guideline in a lower level will often be broader than a 
> higher level.
> That does not mean the higher level item is covered by the 
> lower level. 
> 
>   
> Level 1 says some things must be done
> Level 2 says more things must be done (which of course 
> includes level 1 and goes beyond.) Removing the Level 1 item 
> because even more is required in level 2 is not appropriate logic.
> 
> Thus the analysis below is incorrect.    The Level 2 and 
> Level 3 do not
> cover the level 1 requirement and never can  -- because they 
> arent invoked
> until a more advanced (high number)  level of access.   
> 
> IF the level 1 criteria were lowered to a lower level,  then 
> indeed it would
> be redundant with another item at its own level - and would 
> be 'covered.    
> 
> Now - having said that - we have to ask whether SC1 should be 
> required at level one or not.  I think this is a valid 
> question.  But not because it is redundant with lower levels.
> 
> Perhaps what Yvette (and others) were saying was
> 
> - I don't think we need SC1 at level 1. It just isnt important enough.
> and if moved to a lower level it would be redundant - or 
> covered  - with what we already have a lower levels. 
> 
> I will leave this last as an open question to the group for comment.
> 
> Gregg
> 
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yvette P. Hoitink
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 4:59 AM
> To: 'WAI-GL'
> Subject: Proposal: Delete SC about contracted words
> 
> 
> Dear fellow group members,
> 
> Currently, we have guideline 3.1, level 3, SC 1:
> The meaning of contracted words can be programmatically determined.
> 
> I think this is already covered by other guidelines and 
> propose to delete this SC. In level 2, SC 2 of the same 
> guideline, we require:
> A. The meanings and pronunciations of all words in the 
> content can be programmatically located.
> 
> Since contracted words are still words, this SC requires 
> their meaning can be programatically located, though there 
> may be multiple meanings for that word. 
> 
> In level 3, SC 2, of the same guideline, we require:
> B. Where a word has multiple meanings and the intended 
> meaning is not the first in the associated dictionary(s), 
> then additional markup or another mechanism is provided for 
> determining the correct meaning.
> 
> Combining A and B allows you to determine the meaning of 
> contracted words.
> Therefore, I propose to delete the success criteria about 
> contracted words. 
> 
> It may be that I'm unaware of an important accessibility 
> barrier with contracted words that I don't do justice with 
> this proposal. If so, please let me know what I'm missing. I 
> have asked for examples that show accessibility problems with 
> contracted words but haven't seen or heard any that clarified 
> the specific accessibility problems with them for me. I 
> understand that obscure contractions may be hard to 
> understand, but that's true for difficult uncontracted words 
> as well and is why we require that you can programmatically 
> locate the meaning of every word at level 2. 
> 
> I prefer it if we formulate our SC in broad terms ("word with multiple
> meanings") that are applicable to different linguistic 
> features rather than trying to provide a specific SC for 
> every single linguistic feature that might cause 
> accessibility problems. 
> 
> Yvette Hoitink
> Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
> E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
> WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 30 May 2004 07:56:31 UTC