- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:18:36 -0600
- To: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <010001c622b5$b0395490$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
RE Parent Child relationships in Understanding WCAG 2.0.
We have to list the advisory techniques under the advisory section - no
matter what kind they are (general, html etc). Otherwise there is confusion
between advisory and sufficient.
So technology specific techniques may appear in the sufficient section and
(different) technology specific techniques may be in the advisory section.
Different General may appear in both places as well.
"Technology-Specific VS General" and "Sufficient
techniques/combinations VS Advisory" are two different dimensions.
You need to be able to have both in both.
But we only have combinations in Sufficient section.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
_____
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:22 AM
To: David MacDonald; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; WCAG
Subject: Re: parent child relationships in Wiki
I would expect general techniques are listed under Situation A and Situation
B, without an addition <H5>. If there are no Situations, the general
techniques are listed in place of Situation A, that is, at level 3. I'm not
sure why this outline shows <General Techniques> within <Optional
Techniques>.
I agree that for consistency, we should adopt one of the conventions:
1. Unless a technique is listed in a Technology-Specific section, it is
a general (technology independent) technique, or
2. All general techniques occur within <General Techniques> sections,
and we use them within Situation sections and the Techniques Section as well
as the Optional Techniques section.
My preference is for the first option, but we should at least be consistent.
I've also see SC where we added Technology-Specific sections beneath Common
Failures. The same convention should apply there.
Perversely enough, "Use technology-specific techniques to accomplish XXX" is
a general technique.
On 1/26/06 3:09 AM, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca> wrote:
Would it be safe to say under that Situation A and B there are <H5> general
techniques only, and if there are no Situation A, B sections in a SC it is
because there are no Sufficient Technology Independent Techniques?
David MacDonald
.Access empowers people
.barriers disable them.
www.eramp.com <http://www.eramp.com> <http://www.eramp.com>
_____
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d> On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:53 PM
To: 'WCAG'
Subject: RE: parent child relationships in Wiki
Here is the layout
Gregg
<H2>How to Meet Success Criterion X.X.X
<H3>Key Terms
<H3>Intent of this success criterion
<H3>Techniques for Addressing Success Criterion x.x.x
<H4>Situation A: xxxxxx
<H4>Situation B: yyyyy
<H4>Technology-Specific Techniques
<H5>HTML
<H5>CSS
<H5>Xxxxx
<H4>Common Failures Identified by the Working Group
<H4>Optional Techniques (Advisory) for x.x.x
<H5>General Techniques
<H5>HTML
<H5>Xxxxx
<H3>Benefits: How Success Criterion x.x.x helps people with disabilities
<H3>Examples of Success Criterion x.x.x
<H3>Related resources
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
_____
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d> On Behalf Of David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:35 PM
To: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'WCAG'
Subject: parent child relationships in Wiki
Is there a definitive layout for the "How to Meet" doc.
i.e.
Success_Criteria
<key_terms>
<intent>
<examples>
<sufficient_techniques>
<technology_independent>
<HTML>
<CSS>
<more .>
<common_failures>
<optional_techniques>
<technology_independent>
<HTML>
<CSS>
<more .>
<benefits>
<examples>
<related_resourses>
If this heading order is wrong or the parent child relationships are wrong,
could someone correct it and post it to the list? I think it will be helpful
to have something clearly laid out for everyone to see.
I went through the WIKI and found the following:
These have HTML headings in both the Sufficient and Optional sections:
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.1.1
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.1.3
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.1.4
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_2.4.4
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_3.1.1
These have SMIL headings in both Sufficient and Optional sections:
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.2.1
This has CSS in both the Sufficient and optional sections:
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.3.2
The Following have Situation A, Situation B headings but the other
techniques don't:
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.1.1
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.1.3
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.3.2
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_1.3.4
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_2.5.1
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_2.5.2
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_2.5.3
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_2.5.4
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_3.1.1
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_3.1.2
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio
n_3.1.5
I'm OK with looking at it later.but I don't understand the outline as it
stands right now.
I don't think we should put the technology independent techniques in the
optional section because many of them are not optional.
.Access empowers people
.barriers disable them.
www.eramp.com <http://www.eramp.com> <http://www.eramp.com>
_____
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com]
<mailto:lguarino@adobe.com%5d>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:16 PM
To: David MacDonald; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; WCAG
Subject: Re: Need to have a "technology independent" heading in the GL
I don't understand why you think the current organization lacks of clarity.
Adding additional layers of labels makes it even harder to understand the
relationships between the different pieces. It just adds one more "link" to
follow before you finally reach the information about the technique.
Can't we just add technology independent techniques to the optional section,
before the technology-specific subsections?
On 1/25/06 10:05 AM, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca> wrote:
We have headings for HTML and CSS techniques in both the sufficient and
optional sections. Why not have "Technology Independent Techniques" headings
in both the sufficient and optional sections? I think clarity is more
important than duplicate duplications.
Cheers
David MacDonald
.Access empowers people
.barriers disable them.
www.eramp.com <http://www.eramp.com> <http://www.eramp.com>
_____
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d> <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d>
<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu%5d>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:35 PM
To: 'David MacDonald'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Need to have a "technology independent" heading in the GL
The tech indep show up in two places.
Either - in a sufficiency statement
Or - in an advisory area.
We used to have the sufficient ones listed just after the sufficiency
section but it seemed so redundant that we removed it.
Anything that is a link in the sufficient section is a tech indep technique.
Having a section for them seemed to make sense but . can't figure out how to
do it without having duplication repetitively in a duplicative fashion.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
_____
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d>
<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d> <mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5d>
On Behalf Of David MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:23 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Need to have a "technology independent" heading in the GL
In the "How to meet." Document, I think we need to have a "Technology
Independent" heading in the techniques. I don't think it is clear if we just
have some general techniques with no heading followed by a heading that says
"Technology-Specific".
Regards
David MacDonald
.Access empowers people
.barriers disable them.
www.eramp.com <http://www.eramp.com> <http://www.eramp.com>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:18:45 UTC