- From: Manrique Lopez <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:37 +0200
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
El jue, 11-09-2008 a las 17:01 +0200, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich escribió: > Hi Manrique, > > Jo did already cover your points and I agree with him. > Unfortunately you did come into this group rather late and so you missed > out on the many and lengthy discussions we have had on many of the > points you have made. > Jo's answers summarize this rather well. > And I thanks Jo for the summary ;-) > > > I would like to remember that sometime ago, some comments > > were made about the tests themselves and it seems that none > > of that comments were discussed or taken into consideration: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Jun/0005.html > > > > That's what I've tried... > > And your input was extremely valuable. > There were questions, which I hope had been answered over the course of > time, especially because some were similiar to those here in that they > had been discussed in the group long ago. > Some of your input was cautionary, which was taken into account. > For some I made a decision as editor one way or the other. > ... > > I don't remember the details, but if you feel that substantial changes > were agreed upon in the Task Force and not executed, please do point > that out. > Mostly of my points are about the text and "wording" in the tests, and as far as I can remember, the texts weren't discussed after the document was rewritten before Sophia's F2F. Just to remember those that still apply in the latest version of the document: 4.1 Access Keys We have "primary navigation links" in the "interpretation" but "navigation links and form controls" in the "procedure". Should it be the same text in both sections? 4.3 Avoid Free Text Take care that a "finite number" can be very big. Perhaps it would be better a "reasonable finite number". 4.4 Background Image Readability Perhaps, it would be better adding reference to WCAG 2.0 tests instead of Ishihara in the examples. 4.9 Clarity Maybe we could take some 'info' or resources from WCAG2.0 effort to make the description "richer". References: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#understandable 4.12 Control Labeling How can a machine (easily) test that the label does not describe the purpose of the form control? Perhaps not so 100% machine testable as "Note to BPWG" says. Open issues: Are empty labels "" acceptable, if the meaning of the field is made clear in some other fashion? Perhaps for search boxes or date entry boxes? 4.19 Link Target ID In the "Note to BPWG", the "title" attribute could be added to define "ID". 4.22 Navigation What is the "sample"? I think it was in the original mobileOK Pro document, but it seems that it has been removed in this document, so the procedure may be not too clear 4.26 Page Title I think that second test may conflicts with third example: Test: Does the title repeat unchanged across more than 3 pages? If yes [FAIL] Example: a title of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in an ebook page, across many pages, would be perfectly acceptable 4.38 Use of color It says: "Excluding hyperlinks, does the page include any other blue or purple text? If yes, [FAIL]" Then, I should put the links in blue or purple, shouldn't I? Shouldn't it be better something like: Excluding hyperlinks, does the page include any other text with same color than hyperlinks? If yes, [FAIL] Best regards, -- José Manrique López de la Fuente <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org> Área de Tecnología Fundación CTIC Web: http://www.fundacionctic.org Tel: (+34) 984 29 12 12 Parque Científico Tecnológico de Gijón Edificio Centros Tecnológicos Cabueñes s/n 33203 GIJÓN - ASTURIAS - ESPAÑA #Antes de imprimir este e-mail piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El medioambiente es cosa de todos.
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 15:53:19 UTC