RE: contain edits to HTML techs: Fwd: Proposed changes to Gateway Techniques draft

Here are some very hasty proposals from me for actions to take on John's comments, where they impact HTML techniques. Comments are inline with John's original. My goal is to take advantage of easy improvements but to defer more difficult issues for after publicaton, unless the group decides that one of these issues is of sufficient importance to delay publication. Michael

> >3.
> >
> ><current>
> >
> >[link to] * Short text equivalents for objecct elements ("alt-text") 
> ></current>
> >
> ><proposed>
> >
> >* Short text alternatives for object elements
> >
> ></proposed>
> >

We should adopt this change prior to publication.

> >3.5
> >
> ><current>
> >
> ></current>
> >
> >Problem: Following this link to 
> ><http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-2004072
> 6.html#imagetextlinks>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG2
> 0-HTML-TECHS-20040726.html#imagetextlinks 
> >leads to a technique that is related to Guideline 3.2, 
> according to the 
> >HTML Techniques doc. This would be confusing!
> >
> ><proposed>
> >
> >Add a reference to GL 1.1 at the appropriate point in the 
> HTML Techniques 
> >document.
> >
> ></proposed>

In my opinion, the technique as it appears is correct. Since there is therefore debate on this, I propose we make no change now and address this after publication.

> >4.
> >
> ><current>
> >
> >* Explicit form labels
> >
> ></current>
> >
> ><proposed>
> >
> >·        Text alternatives for graphical buttons (input element of 
> >type=âEURimageâEUR)
> >
> ></proposed>
> >
> ><proposed #2>
> >
> >Move the link to information about labeling form controls to Gateway 
> >Techniques for Guideline 1.3.
> >
> ></proposed #2>
> >

I'm unclear on what change is requested. If we can get quick clarification we might be able to incorporate it before publication. Otherwise we should address is after publication.

> >6.
> >
> ><current>
> >
> >* p;Provide alt for area
> >
> ></current>
> >
> ><proposed>
> >
> >Provide text alternatives for selectable areas of 
> client-side image maps
> >
> ></proposed>
> >

We can incorporate this proposal prior to publication.

> >7.
> >
> ><current>
> >
> >* Provide redunddant text links for client side image map 
> (deprecated).
> >
> ></current>
> >
> ><proposed>
> >
> >Delete the item
> >
> ></proposed>
> >
> >Rationale
> >
> >I donâEUR(tm)t see a need to provide a technique for satisfying a 
> deprecated 
> >checkpoint.
> >

It is the technique itself that we are indicating should be treated as deprecated, but we wanted to include such techniques in order to be explicit. I think this correctly indicates our intention, but perhaps this is not clear. Nevertheless, I don't know how we can quickly determine how to clarify this. We should address this after publication of the draft.

> >
> >
> >8.
> >
> > From the HTML Techniques doc:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20040726
> .html#object
> >
> >
> >
> >12.1 Text and non-text equivalents for applets and 
> programmatic objects
> >
> ><current>
> >
> >This example takes advantage of the fact the object elements may be 
> >embedded to provide for alternative representations of information
> >
> ></current>
> >
> ><proposed>
> >
> >This example takes advantage of the fact the object elements 
> may be nested 
> >to provide for alternative representations of information
> >
> ></proposed>
> >

We can adopt this proposal prior to publication.

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 15:27:30 UTC