Edit comment LC-725 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-527 Next: LC-869

Comment LC-725: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Robert C. Baker <Robert.C.Baker@ssa.gov> on behalf of Social Security Administration; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

(See LC 681 for complete submission)

The guidelines do not address the following:

Â§Mark-up of textual information for carets and other pointers.

Proposed Change:

---------------------------
SENT FOR CLARIFICATION
* Not sure on this one. If you mean graphic carets etc - they are covered under 1.1 which says that ALL non-text content must have text equivalents. If you mean text characters, -- well they are already text so I guess that isn't the problem. Does 1.1's requirement for text alternative for all graphics, and 1.3's requirement for content to be separable from presentation - (which would mean all bullets (lists) would need to be evident programmatically) - address your concern here? If not could you tell us more and give us an example that contains carets and other pointers so we can see what you mean?

CLARIFICATION RECEIVED

This is another extension of the issue with focal point. It is probably more of an issue with the user agent or browser. Browsers that supply an actual caret indicating where focus is can make web pages and applications easier to navigate like fat clients, word processors etc.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [EDITORZ] See 681 for request for clarificantion note. Discussed in the 20 July 2006 telecon: Resolution: accept LC-725 as proposed. http://www.w3.org/2006/07/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html; Resolution: The user agent issue is, of course, outside of our guidelines and would be in the domain of the user agent guidelines. From a content perspective, any non-text content must have text equivalents under SC 1.1.1. Structure (lists etc.) must be programatically determinable under SC 1.3.1. Other use of characters that convey information required to understand and operate content should be addressed by SC 1.3.3 (formerly 1.3.5).; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)