- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:44:30 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 10:19 AM 2001-01-04 -0500, Beth Skwarecki wrote: >> Here's the text: >> (l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create >> interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be >> identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > [identification, not an equivalent?] > >That sounds like it would be valid just to have text saying "if you can't >see this DHTML menu, you're missing a really nice DHTML menu. Goodbye." >Surely that's not what they mean?! > AG:: Just as it is easy to read 'identified' in a way that is too loose, it is easy to read 'equivalent' in a way that is too tight. We have had lots of problems with people not grasping the optional [rough] implied where we talk about equivalents. What is really intended in either case (WCAG or 508) is something in the middle where the stretch to describe it either way is just a little stretch. If we can build a good corpus of good examples, I don't think that we will have a lot of trouble getting those who are trying to comply with 508 to emulate the examples. "Damn the terminology, full TECHNIQUES ahead!" (see GL list mobilizing to build techniques in this and other areas) Al >--beth >-- ><http://playground.alfred.edu/~bethnewt/>http://playground.alfred.edu/~bet hnewt/ >
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 11:39:05 UTC