- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:37:51 -0400
- To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Harvey Bingham wrote: Hi Harvey, Thank you for the comments. Comments that I've snipped have been integrated in one way or another. For the rest, my comments below prefixed with IJ:. > Comment notation > Reference by section.subsection > XomitX > _insert_ > ?in question? > [hb: reason for change] > > 2. No mention of XML family of languages, SMIL Boston, > even as futures. Suggest that these at least be > acknowledged. If we are not to discuss XML at all in the techniques, I'd rather not mention them. We made the same choice for WCAG in the end. > Para 9 As the user agent shifts the point of regard to > a table, it should first provide information about the > entire table. This information might be the Caption, > Title, or Summary information of the table_, or a > synthesized table summary_. Access to this information > would allow the user to determine whether or not to > examine the contents of the table, or to move the > point of regard to the next block of content. > > Para 11 In order to provide access to contextual > information for individuals using non-graphical > browsers, or for individuals with certain types of > learning disabilities, it is necessary for the user > agent to allow the point of regard to be moved from > cell to cell, both right/left and up/down via keyboard > commands. _At the beginnings and ends of rows or columns, > give warning, before continuing._ ?Where should the > continuation go? next/prior cell? I'd rather not go into that much detail. I like the point about informing the user when a table edge has been reached. > 3.5.4 Searching > > Add bullets for DOM tree walking? > * next sibling > * prior sibling > * parent > * end of current element Why would this go under searching? But I'll add to the section on Navigation of Document Structure. > 3.6 Context and orientation > general question: why are not checkpoint lists in > ascending order? Is there some attempt to order them > by priority? Right now there's no order. However, it's a good idea to consider some order. I guess numerical is good enough. > 8.2.3 2nd edit note: add to list ... keys far apart. ?with regular > keyboard or specially enlarged one? I suppose this is regular keyboard, since the need would be less pressing on a specialized keyboard. > 3.9.2 Accessible documentation. Is this the place to mention or link > to the U.S. Federal requirement for this in August 2000? I reference > the EITAAC Report May 12, 1999 > http:/www.access-board.gov/pubs/eitaacrpt.htm > > That has different content than the link to EITAAC on the trace site: > Desktop Software Standards in the bibliography: > > http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/eitaac_desktop_software_standards/desktop_so > http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/eitaac_desktop_software_standards/desktop_softwar > e_standards.htm This is a really interesting question. We haven't (I believe) included any non-technical policy resources. I see no harm, and it could be useful, but I wonder what others think. > 4.1 System conventions > > ?Are accesskeys always case insensitive? HTML defines the value of "accesskey" to be a Unicode character. Thus, accesskeys are case-sensitive (or rather - case doesn't even apply). > 4.1.1 Some guidelines for specific platforms > ?New JAVA release with better accessibility? I would love it if someone let me know how to update this if necessary. Thanks Harvey! - Ian Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 30 September 1999 17:38:04 UTC