Re: wcag review 2

Joe Clark wrote:

>>     Issue 1
>>     re: Level 2 and Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4 - Re: 
>> Text
>>     and diagrams and audio that are presented over  color or image or
>>     pattern of lines etc -
>> Lisa: it seems a bit hard and inconsistent to make high contrast a
>> requirement even when the user gent can easily tern off the background
>> picture or lines etc.
> It is not true that the user agent can "easily" turn them off. That 
> would require de-loading a certain image file, which may be specified 
> using CSS background properties.
Hmm, The Firefox free accessibility extension seems to do this quite 
easily, and I hesitate to restrict author freedom for a second or two of 
re rendering.

>> Issue 3:
>> re: More than one way is available to locate content within a set of
>> delivery units. [V]
>> Lisa: I found this  unclear, and potentially  not very useful. Repeating
>> the same link in a footer, as was in the menu bar is typical , adds
>> clutter to the page, and does not help accessibility.
> Informatl usability studies of sites that offer a near-complete footer 
> on every page (Flickr is an example, also Xplane's Xblog) show that 
> people find it handy. Something at the bottom of a page is pretty easy 
> to ignore.
Handy yes, but do we need it to be accessible at this level?

I am not disagreeing, It is all a balance, and I am wondering about not 
major usability issues  against author burden.
A site map I think makes a big difference to some groups of  disabled  
users. If that is what we are requiring then that makes sense. But 
requiring a redundant set of links on a page should be author's choice?


Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 15:18:44 UTC