Re: SVGT 1.2 Comments and the need for accessibility techniques

On Thursday, December 8, 2005, 8:24:57 AM, Jonathan wrote:

JC> Chris,

JC> Why do you continue to insist that I haven't read the appendix*?

Not just the appendix. You don't seem to have read the status of this
document either, so continue to ask questions like the one you ask below
about "where is the appendix for full" because you have either not read
or not understood that SVG Tint is now the core language and SVG Full
the set of extensions.

JC> It is clear that whilst the 'F' appendix may point to other normative  
JC> documents, they aren't in the SVG domain.

That isn't clear; they seem generally applicable, but I agree an SVG
techniques document would help.

JC> for instance as I asked previously in this thread, how is it intended  
JC> that SVG will meet WCAG 2.4.8 :

JC>   Information about the user's location within a set of delivery  
JC> units is available.

JC> " Providing a breadcrumb trail.
JC>    Providing a site map.
JC>    Identifying content's relationship to a larger collection using a
JC> technology-specific technique.
JC>    Using an icon or text to indicate current location within
JC> navigation bars. "

That is easily doable in SVG and in fact is very common, for example
maps that have a smaller mini-map showing the current zoomed-in location
and allowing dragging to a new location.

JC> SVG requires it's own accessibility techniques and guidelines.

Techniques yes; its not clear that the guidelines are so html specific
that they are only applicable there.

JC> regards

JC> Jonathan Chetwynd
JC> Accessible Solutions

JC> *My query regarding the accessibility appendix was why it had been  
JC> dropped from recent 'full' specifications.

Robin replied to this and I replied several times both on and offlist.

JC> the 'F' appendix comes after 4 years and frankly isn't representative  
JC> of the hard work that the SVG WG has achieved in other areas.

Please point to another W3C format that requires WCAG 1.0 compliance as
part of document conformance.

JC> On 7 Dec 2005, at 09:11, Chris Lilley wrote:

JC> On Wednesday, December 7, 2005, 8:17:01 AM, Jonathan wrote:

JC>> Chris,

JC>> Accessibility deserves more than your filibustering.

JC> Jonathan, this is getting tiresome. I was going to reply privately to
JC> save you embarrassment, but since you chose to cross-post widely I
JC> feel it necessary to respond in public.

JC> Accessibility is important. I have already told you that there is an
JC> accessibility appendix,


JC> although you can't seem to find it


JC> or even read the right spec.


JC> In other emails, or even in other parts of emails where you complain
JC> that there is no appendix, you do find it,


JC> but then seem unable to follow a link to a normative section and post
JC> complaining that the appendix is informative.

JC> Other days, like today and yesterday, you merely throw insults or state
JC> that you have never had a response - which is not going to work in an
JC> archived forum.

JC>> On 6 Dec 2005, at 17:19, Chris Lilley wrote:

JC>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 8:02:43 AM, Jonathan wrote:

JC>>> I also wrote recently to Chris and yourself regarding this issue,
JC>>> but failed to receive any response. Also mentioning other relevant
JC>>> accessibility failings in SVG.

JC>> Actually you did get several responses, for example I pointed out  
JC> that
JC>> you were looking in the wrong document.

 Chris Lilley          
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 10:00:56 UTC