W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Minority opinons

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:06:36 -0400
Message-Id: <200010130047.UAA1253321@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I apologize for the late hit, here.  I know this was discussed in the group
I did not participate.  On the other hand, Jon raised this as an example of
guidelines language that should be aligned across the various guidelines, and
that reminded me to check what you have actually done.  

The "equivalent vs. equivalency target" definitions in this volume are not the
same definition of "equivalent" as in math, English or the WCAG and the math,
English and WCAG sense is appropriate in this context, and the usage currently
in the draft is not.

The purity of the symmetry of equivalence relationships, which is one of their
standard properties, should be exploited in sending our message.  It is
important to the principles that we should be supporting across all the
guidelines.  This is to say, it is important that the peernes of any
equivalence groups be reflected in our language.


The current language (in the 29 Sept. Draft) is just primary/alternate content
under new labels.  Using a perfectly good English word to mean something else
detracts from the clarity of our message, and using anything other than the
standard meaning of equivalent in places such as Checkpoint 2.3 states the
wrong requirement.

There is no need to go to Terms of Art to say what needs to be said in 2.3
etc.  For example, one could rewrite 2.3 as follows:

Change to

   2.3 Where there are multiple fragments of content within a document which
are equivalent in the senses that they convey the same information, closely or
roughly; provide easy access to any equivalent among the range of
This shall be done through at least one of the following mechanisms: (1)
allowing configuration to render one equivalent instead of another; (2)
allowing configuration to render more than one equivalent; (3) allowing the
user to a displayed equivalent and then inspect any equivalents of the
item; (4) providing a direct link to another (each other) equivalent in
content, just before or after a displayed equivalent in document order.
[Priority 1]

From [for reference]

   2.3 Provide easy access to each [167]equivalent and each
          [168]equivalency target through at least one of the following
          mechanisms: (1) allowing configuration to render the equivalent
          instead of the equivalency target; (2) allowing configuration
          to render the equivalent in addition to the equivalency target;
          (3) allowing the user to select the equivalency target and then
          inspect its equivalents; (4) providing a direct link to the
          equivalent in content, just before or after the equivalency
          target in document order. [Priority 1]


At 03:21 PM 2000-10-12 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Any minority opinion that a group member wishes to have documented and 
>included in the last call announcement needs to be sent to the list no 
>later than 18 October.  If you are planning to submit a minority opinion it 
>would please the chair and the editors to at least know the intention 
>before 18 October in the preparation of last call materials.
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>College of Applied Life Studies
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>Voice: (217) 244-5870
>Fax: (217) 333-0248
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>WWW: <http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund>http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>WWW: <http://www.w3.org/wai/ua>http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2000 20:43:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:28 UTC