Re: "Content"-related Fixes (including checkpoint 2.1)

I have some comments on Ian's comments.

I hadn't thought of checkpoint 2.1 as being specifically related to access
through the user interface, but with checkpoint 1.1 covering the APIs, I
suppose that might be implied. 

Wouldn't the applicability provisions kick in so that developers of user
agents would know what applied?


Ian's comments on my comments:

> OLD:
> 2.1 Ensure that the user has access to all content, including equivalent
> alternatives for content. [Priority 1]
> Refer to guideline 5 for more information about programmatic access to
> content.
> Techniques for checkpoint 2.1
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 2.1 Ensure that the user has access to all content. [Priority 1]
> 
> Note 1. Following this checkpoint means that individuals who rely on
> visual-text-only, braille-only, synthesized-speech-only, as well
individuals
> who rely on certain media combinations (e.g., captions and auditory
> descriptions for movies and animations) will obtain the value of content,
> provided that the content author adhered to WCAG 1.0.

IJ: I have problems with this if 2.1 is supposed to be through
    the user interface only. If we are talking about users with
    assistive technologies primarily, then access through the DOM
    is the preferred solution. Therefore, 2.1 is not primarily for users
    who rely on speech or braille. It is for users with disabilities
    of the UA's user interface.
 
> Note 2. Ordinarily, a "source" view does not adequately fulfill this
> checkpoint.
> 
> Refer to guideline 5 for more information about programmatic access to
> content.
> Techniques for checkpoint 2.1

===========================
Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Princeton, NJ 08541
609-734-5615 (Voice)
E-mail: ehansen@ets.org
(W) 609-734-5615 (Voice)
FAX 609-734-1090

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 12:10:27 UTC