- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:41:37 -0800
- To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "achuter@technosite.es" <achuter@technosite.es>, "w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl-request@frink.w3.org>, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't like adding questions after people have already answered, but I just added this one. Loretta On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote: > Just to be clear, the reason this fails is because of “elements are nested > according to their specifications”? Or is it because of “elements have > complete start and end tags”? If it’s the second, “complete” is not defined > as being complete according to any particular specification. I think it’s > somewhat ambiguous as to whether <input type="text"> is complete in this > case, since there’s no reference to the specification. I could make an > argument that end-tag completeness is not dependant on the spec being > referenced. > > > > I have a product team asking me for a definitive answer on this by next > week, and I’m not sure I see consensus. If there is consensus on this, can > we add either a failure, or a technique that includes an HTML example and an > XHTML example? > > > > Loretta, would it be possible to add this to the survey for tomorrow’s call? > > > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Gregg Vanderheiden > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:53 AM > To: achuter@technosite.es > Cc: w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org; Sailesh Panchang; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Re: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2009, at 4:03 AM, Alan Chuter wrote: > > Looking afresh at the presentation of the Techniques I have to agree that > it's not readily apparent that failing them [techniques] is not a failure of > the corresponding SCs. > > > > > > > > > > Hmmmmm > > > > > > we have these instructions at the TOP of the Understanding doc (See below) > > > and at the top of the How To Meet doc > > > > but it looks like those don't get seen..... > > > > Do we need something repeated for each SC (we don't like to do that.. > but....) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HOW TO MEET INTRO INCLUDES ========================== > > > > About the Techniques > > Note that all techniques are informative - you don't have to follow them. > The "sufficient techniques" listed below are considered sufficient to meet > the success criteria; however, it is not necessary to use these particular > techniques. Anyone can submit new techniques at any time. If techniques are > used other than those listed by the Working Group, then some other method > for establishing the technique's ability to meet the success criteria would > be needed. > > > > > > > > UNDERSTANDING INTRO INCLUDES ========================= > > > > > > Sufficient and Advisory Techniques > > Rather than having technology specific techniques in WCAG 2.0, the > guidelines and Success Criteria themselves have been written in a technology > neutral fashion. In order to provide guidance and examples for meeting the > guidelines using specific technologies (for example HTML) the working group > has identified sufficient techniques for each Success Criterion that are > sufficient to meet that Success Criterion. The list of sufficient techniques > is maintained in the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" (and mirrored in How to Meet > WCAG 2.0). In this way it is possible to update the list as new techniques > are discovered, and as Web Technologies and Assistive Technologies progress. > > Note that all techniques are informative. The "sufficient techniques" are > considered sufficient by the WCAG Working Group to meet the success > criteria. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. > If techniques are used other than those listed by the Working Group, then > some other method for establishing the technique's ability to meet the > Success Criteria would be needed > > Most Success Criteria have multiple sufficient techniques listed. Any of the > listed sufficient techniques can be used to meet the Success Criterion. > There may be other techniques which are not documented by the working group > that could also meet the Success Criterion. As new sufficient techniques are > identified they will be added to the listing. > > In addition to the sufficient techniques, there are a number of advisory > techniques that can enhance accessibility, but did not qualify as sufficient > techniques because they are not sufficient to meet the full requirements of > the Success Criteria, they are not testable, and/or because they are good > and effective techniques in some circumstances but not effective or helpful > in others. These are listed as advisory techniques and are right below the > sufficient techniques. Authors are encouraged to use these techniques > wherever appropriate to increase accessibility of their Web pages.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 00:42:16 UTC