RE: User Agent Teleconference for 30 November 2006

my responses inline jim:

> Some thoughts:
>
> 10.1 Associate table cells and headers (P1)
> - the wording of the two sufficient techniques is confusing. Do they
> both need to be done? The second one seems little help for users who are
> blind without the first. But other places where "Sufficient Techniques
> appear (e.g. 2.4) it seems that the implementer can choose one or
> the other.

jim: they are just techniques, not requirements.

> 10.3 Single highlight configuration (P2)
> - these modifier-type checkpoints are always a bit odd - having too many
> of these is one reason why WCAG went to a three level system for each
> requirement.

jim: Right. We have two separate Guidelines (3, 11). Also, P1 Checkpoints
2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11,
9.3, 10.2, 10.6
P2 checkpoints 3.6, 4.12, 4.13, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 9.5, 11.5
P3 Checkpoints 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 9.10, 11.7
all contain configuration requirements.
Issue: Perhaps some/all of these need to be consolidated.

> 10.5 Provide link information (P3)
> - lacks UI suggestions for displaying the additional info

jim: good point. then based on 10.4 and other checkpoints...should the user
be allowed to configure which information displayed?

> 10.6 Highlight current viewport (P1)
> - shouldn't the images in the techs go with 10.2?

jim: I think so. they don't fit in viewport highlighting.

> 10.7 Indicate viewport position (P3)
> - this checkpoint strikes me as bit disorganized - I wonder if we should
> mention following conventions for displaying scrollbars, progress, etc.?

jim: and add references to conventions

Jim

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 18:28:54 UTC