- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:21:22 -0600
- To: "Tim Boland" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Tim wrote: <blockquote> Is it possible to more specifically (objectively) define what we mean by "unusual" in the context of GL3.1L3SC2, or perhaps employ another term which may be more testable, or (most radical) remove the term entirely from the SC, so that the phrase would be "words used in a restricted way"? </blockquote> Thanks, Tim. I would *prefer* to find another, more testable term than "unusual" here, but I think I could *live with* your "more radical" proposal to remove it altogether, so that the SC addresses "words used in a restricted way." I need to think about this some more-- trying to figure out if we lose anything important by deleting "unusual." I believe the JIS includes a guideline asking authors to avoid using words that are likely to be unfamiliar to the intended audience; where such terms cannot be avoided, JIS asks for definitions. It's my understanding that JIS does not have the same requirements about testability that WCAG 2.0 has. Thus they can use terms like "intended audience," etc., in ways that we can't. John "Good design is accessible design." Dr. John M. Slatin, Director Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Boland Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:19 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: GL3.1 L3 SC2 concern? I also have a concern about testability of "unusual" as stated in GL3.1L3 SC2. I agree with the concern I thought I heard expressed at the November 3 teleconference on this topic. Is it possible to more specifically (objectively) define what we mean by "unusual" in the context of GL3.1L3SC2, or perhaps employ another term which may be more testable, or (most radical) remove the term entirely from the SC, so that the phrase would be "words used in a restricted way"? Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST At 02:00 PM 11/4/2005 +0000, you wrote: >Yesterday, I heard this argument only in the context of GL 3.1 L3 SC2 >(definitions for words used in an unusual or restricted way), so I >object to your generalization.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 17:21:26 UTC