RE: 1.3 provision (was in 3.1)

That's much better.  How about making it parallel to the level 1 success
criteria?
 
1) The following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through assistive
technology compatible markup or data model) from the content without
interpreting presentation.
    a) Structural components of diagrams

	-----Original Message-----
	From: john_slatin [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:17 AM
	To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]
	Subject: RE: 1.3 provision (was in 3.1)
	
	
	Re: "... expose the structure in accessible form":
	 
	I see two problems with this wording:
	1. "expose the structure" assumes fairly sophisticated knowledge
of technical concepts-- i.e., this won't mean much to non-geeks.
	2. "... in an accessible form" seems circular, since the point
of the checkpoint is to facilitate accessibility.
	 
	So how about something like the following:
	"Structural components of diagrams can be recognized/used by
assistive technology"?
	 
	John
	 
	 
	John Slatin, Ph.D.
	Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
	University of Texas at Austin
	FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
	Austin, TX 78712
	ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
	email [email protected]
	web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> 
	 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 10:33 am
	To: [email protected]
	Subject: 1.3 provision (was in 3.1)
	
	

	We currently have an item in the new 1.3  level 2 that reads

	 

	"1. [diagrams that have structure can be accessed by the user.]"

	 

	It actually isn't worded very well  and is hard to understand

	 

	I suggest it be worded something like 

	 

	"Any diagrams that have structure expose the structure in
accessible form. "

	(is "accessible form"  clear enough?)

	
	Thanks. 

	Gregg

	------------------------------------
	Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
	Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace, Univ of Wis
	[email protected]