- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:39:47 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:38 14/03/2006, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: <blockquote> We need to decide to delete or keep 2.4.1 Navigational mechanisms within the content can be programmatically determined. [How to meet 2.4.1] There was a proposal to delete it because there were no techniques for the SC. All techniques for 2.4.1 in the How TO Meet doc are either techniques for other success criteria as well, (so they are already covered) or they are just a title with no techniques (in sufficient section). </blockquote> I have edited the stub '<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_Header_misuse>Failure due to Header <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_Header_misuse>misuse' and the two empty ones: <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_structural_markup_for_presentation_effects>Failure due to using structural markup for presentation <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_structural_markup_for_presentation_effects>effects and <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_scripting_events_instead_of_anchors>Failure due to using scripting events instead of anchors. The only one that is still empty is <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_expose_common_navigational_features&action=edit>Programmatically expose common navigational <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_expose_common_navigational_features&action=edit>features: I don't know what we can put there beyond creating links/navigational features according to spec (in HTML: the a, area and link elements; possibly also the base element, although that affects the behaviour of certain links rather than being a navigational mechanism in its own right). I'm not sure if 'Failure due to using structural markup for presentation effects' should map to 2.4.1. How about 1.3.1 or 1.3.4? Gregg also wrote: <blockquote> The last poll was 12 to delete and 1 to keep and 2 who "could live with deleting it". If there are techniques for the doc prepared and polled by Thursday we can discuss and see if new techniques change the picture. Otherwise we will need to delete as having no documented techniques to meet. If there are techniques that are not already covered by other techniques – then the group can discuss and see if they feel it should stay or not. </blockquote> If there are failures that are not covered elsewhere, then the SC has a reason for existence. I don't think that the other success criteria cover all situations (see especially the example in the third failure). I will now withdraw to my bunker and wait for the bombshells ;-) Regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:40:03 UTC