RE: [Techs] Draft Gateway Techniques for Guideline 1.3

[jms] On  Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:10 PM[jms] ,
Gregg wrote:
<blockquote> 
I meant that they were beyond the guidelines - if you have them at Level
1.

If you put them with a SC that is at an appropriate level they may be
fine as strategies. 

 

We need to be very careful about what we post as interpretations of the
guidelines - or they can change the meaning and scope.  Oops I meant the
SC mostly - but guidelines too I guess


Gregg
[jms] </blockquote>

John replies:

Gregg, I'm not sure what you mean. In the draft I posted late Sunday
night [1] (it actually appears in the archive for Monday) and in the
update I posted this afternoon[2], the first two headings and the text
underneath them are taken directly from the 30 July working draft of
WCAG 2.0. I simply quoted the text of the guideline as it appears there,
then added a heading that says Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline
1.3, and immediately underneath that is the text of success criterion
#1, with the current wording "derived progrmmatically" replaced by
"programmatically determined" as per various discussions on the list and
in the calls (it can easily be changed back if we decide to revert to
"derived programmatically" if that's what folks want to do).  Then comes
stuff I drafted, beginning with the heading that says "Reading Order"
and continuing down to  the heading that says "Level 2 Success Criteria
for Guideline 1.3." Also included in there are sections about level 1
success criteria #s 2 and 3 (though I may have forgotten to tag them as
headings, for which I apologize). Following the heading that says "Level
2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3" is the text of the level 2 success
criterion, and following that is material I drafted.

 

So I thought I *was* putting this material "under" the success criteria.
Obviously there's something I'm not getting-- I hear your concern about
appearing to "change" the meaning and scope of the Guidelines, and of
course I don't intend to do that! Can you point me to particular places
in the text that you see as problematic and help me see the problems?
(And, if you have time, could you see if any of your concerns are
addressed by the update I posted to the list today?)

 

Thanks much.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0503.html#star
t

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0516.html#star
t

[3]  http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

 

 

John