Re: Re[2]: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1

Technology neutral is an important  point to bear in mind for sure.
And it is alright to focus on 4.1.1  for this thread but making a
decision with regard to treatment of 'false positives' based on one SC
alone may lead to inconsistencies on how and why FPs are being
addressed in an extension.
Sailesh
On 7/18/16, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:36 AM
>
>
> The term visible in the DOM tree is problematic.  Do you mean visible with
> the current CSS or do you mean exists in the DOM tree?  I would prefer a
> term that was more clear that we were talking about being present in the DOM
> tree.
> [Jason] The entire proposal is very technology-specific in any case. It
> wouldn’t address PDF documents, for instance, which have tags but no DOM
> tree, or contexts in which the author is writing in XML.
> One of the principal objectives of WCAG 2.0 was to avoid HTML-specific
> technical assumptions in the guidelines and success criteria.
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it
> is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in
> error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take
> any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it
> from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
>
> ________________________________
>

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 13:52:29 UTC