- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 09:54:34 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@srl.rmit.EDU.AU>
- CC: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > 3.1 content should be recognised as an alternative source of information > for APPLET as well as OBJECT Yes. > in 3.3 - technique 4.3.1 > > Does linearising necessarily imply text only? I would not ahve thought > so, although it must (to comply with other provisions) be able to be > rendered as text only. I will remove the text only part. > 4.1 In general this requirement may be met by providing keyboard access > to all functionality and by exposing that funtionality to third party > technology. Ok. > 5.1 Is it intrinsically aproblem to provide redundancy of menu control > (from a user point of view) ? I would have thought that if it can be done > then it might be quite useful to have an accessibility menu, for example, > which simply repeats a number of controls that are also grouped in other > categories. We discussed this at the face-to-face and the point was brought up that controls should be integrated rather than concentrated in a specific menu. When asked whether it was possible/a good idea to synthesize and accessibility menu from other entries, developers answered that it wasn't easy and it wasn't good design (if I recall correctly). > in 5.3 - technique 5.3.2 Provide notification of changes in a document > resulting from the execution of a script. Why is this priority 3? There could be two reasons: 1) You are the first person to comment on the rating and it needs review 2) The browser may not know about all the changes that took place. > 7.1 Support accessibility features of HTML > LANG is priority 3. I would have thought it was 2 at least. As it is priority 2 in the PAGL as well, I will change it to 2 here if no one protests. -Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 1998 09:54:20 UTC