Re: GL 2.5 Issues Summary and Proposal

Andi prooses:

<blockquote>
2. If an input error is detected and suggestions for correction are
known
and can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, the error
is
identified and the suggestions are provided.
</blockquote>

I propose adding the phrase "in text" to the very end of the SC, for
consistency with L2 SC1 and  with the intent of the guideline to reduce
risk of error...


Under L3 SC3:

<blockquote>
3. If possible for the natural language of the text, an option is
provided
to check text entries for misspelled words with suggestions for correct
spellings.
</blockquote>

We might consider "text-processing language" instead of "natural languge
of the text." This is for consistency with Internationalization
recommendations and definitions.  (This might also be relevant to GL
3.1.)


I agree with Ben's suggested rewrite for L3 SC4.

Under issues to be discussed, Andi wrote:

<blockquote>
..., Jason indicated that with xforms,
the presentation is not under the control of the author ...
</blockquote>
I'm not sure this is quite what Jason said.  It's my understanding that
in XFORMS there isn't a *default* presentation of the form control as
there is in XHTML.  But the author *can* use CSS to control the
presentation.  For example the element <select1> could be styled to
display as a radio button.  User agents might well include such a
default rendering in the default CSS (as Joe has reminded us, there's
always a default style sheet in the user agent; it's just hardcoded).


Re issue 1351: I disagree with the suggestion to remove the SC about
spell checking.  This is an important accessibility aid for people with
LD, people who are blind, and many older users.  I've seen a number of
studies indicating that all these groups are prone to higher rates of
spelling errors (this is also relevant to 1396 but I can't put my finger
on the references right now, sorry).  If this SC can't be met for
certain languages, then content in those languages should pass by
default (on this SC).

847: do we want to reject the issue and invite submissions? Or would it
be better procedure to leave it open pending submissions?

1215: agree with Andi.


1344 agree wth Andi

John

"Good design is accessible design." 
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/

Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 19:49:45 UTC