- From: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:58:42 -0800
- To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Please submit your comments on the survey when it is created. This mail was to task force members to let them know that there were 2 techniques which, while we had agreed on a path, they had not had a chance to review. I wanted to ensure Task Force members who do not normally respond to WCAG technique surveys had a chance to add their comments. Regards, James On 12/13/2013 6:44 AM, Sailesh Panchang wrote: > Hello James, > My understanding of F87 is that one should not use CSS :after / :before to present essential content ... this is in line with F3 too. > In fact the text alternative computation link included in the reasoning for removal of F87 says: > "Note: Though the user agent may make efforts to compute a text alternative from CSS-generated text in the absence of text content determinable from the DOM, authors should not provide text through a style sheet, as the user agent may incorrectly determine the text alternative." > > Regards, > Sailesh > > > James wrote: > Following up on my actions today here are some proposals > for > > F87 and F89 > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/F89_Edit > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Aria-Edit:_F87 > > > > These can be considered for next week's WCAG survey > but have not yet > been reviewed by the TF. I would like to encourage TF > members who do > not normally comment on the WCAG survey to make any > comments they > may have there. > > > > Regards, > > James > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 16:59:18 UTC