- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:58:47 +0000
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
aloha, again! in response to Al's CR comments filed with www-style on the CR draft of CSS 2.1 pertaining to the inaccessibility of the CSS 2.1 index, which is archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0139.html an issue (Issue #21) has been created at: http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-21 however, the issue as logged with the "Resolution" being "assumed editorial", and the post which points to the CSS 2.1 issues list does NOT include the proposed PF solution to the inaccessibility of the CSS 2.1 index: <q cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0139.html"> A sufficient (and highly recommended) repair technique for this problem can be found in the Techniques document for WCAG 2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/C7.html http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/navigation- mechanisms-refs.html which details a repair technique which enables a user to contextualize and fully understand the meaning and target of repetitive hyperlink test. The result would be individualized index items, rather than merely a repetitious and uninformative listing of links by section/chapter number ONLY, thus making it possible for the non-visual user to utilize the index. This repair technique also has the advantage of individualizing each hyperlink when the document's hyperlinks are listed in a list of links, or when one is aurally or tactilely experiencing the index. </q> i believe that this is a highly sufficient repair technique, and do not understand why our explicit request and recommended repair has been completely ignored... the WAI has offered a solution, and we should, and MUST, insist that WCAG 2.0 Technique C7, cited above, should be effected in the CSS 2.1 index -- the use of "title" in this case is a non-starter, as the "title" element is not readily available to the average user of assistive technology (most commercial screen readers, for example, only offer a toggle-choice: 1. use hyperlink text 2. use title defined for hyperlink 3. use longest choosing options 2 or 3 can lead to serious disconnect between what should be presented as hyperlink text and what has been added by an author, via the "title" element for contextual reasons, as in the following example: <EXAMPLE> The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 2.0 is also available as a <a href="wcag20.zip" title="download the zip archive of WCAG 2.0 as hypertext (size: 2MB)">zip archive</a>. </EXAMPLE> yes, i cited a pretty tame example, but the information an author wishes to pass to a user about the purpose and specifics of the linked file would be lost if a user only had a choice between the hyperlink text and the "title" defined for the link... i do NOT think that the PFWG or the WAI in general need point the editors of the CSS 2.1 CR draft to an "accessible index" as per their request: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0144.html as (A) W3C publications are supposed to be WCAG compliant, despite past failures of individual technical recommendations to meet WCAG success criteria, and (B) we have suggested an eminently implementable mechanism whereby the inaccessibility of the index can be corrected... is this something that the WAI needs to liaise with the communications team at W3C to effect/enforce? gregory. -------------------------------------------------------------- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. -- Mark Twain -------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus --------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 19:59:20 UTC