W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > June 2017

Re: changes for help

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 01:06:10 +0300
To: "McSorley" <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
Cc: "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15c7a49662a.dc79a260123710.8719146746386971489@zoho.com>

        

        
            It makes it hard to conform, then if it is just a techneque But if that is what people prefer I am ok with it.All the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter---- On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 23:14:48 +0300  McSorley, Jan<jan.mcsorley@pearson.com> wrote ----I like John's idea to use "programmatically associated," or "programmatically available."         Jan McSorley           VP, AccessibilityPsychometrics and Testing Services                                  400 Center Ridge Drive, Suite EAustin, TX  78753           M - (512) 673-9569           Twitter: @Jan_McSorleySkype:  jan.mcsorleywww.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley                       Learn more at pearson.com                              We put a man on the moon in the 1960's ... surely we can make information technology fully accessible to people with disabilities.  It can be done ... it must be done ... it will be done! On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:41 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:Hi LIsa,I agree, those are all potential "techniques" However, my larger question / suggestion is to be more explicit in the Success Criteria language by saying that the support is programmatically associated (i.e. directly linked somehow in the source code), as opposed to simply "provided" (which I continue to find ambiguous). This is because it could then be argued that an additional "glossary" page that "translates / transforms" those values, buried deep inside of a website, would none-the-less meet the Criteria - it's provided, just not on the same page as the term(s) in question (which I will presume is an important part of the deliverable, correct?)Just trying to further tighten up the language.JFOn Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:28 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:I think this should be a technique. Is that acceptable?  All the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter---- On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 19:21:49 +0300 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- Greetings Coga!This is looking significantly better - kudos. I have a question however. Bullet #1 states:For numerical content: Charts, tables, graphics or non-numerical text content are available that summarize numerical information;​...and specifically the "non-numerical text" requirement. As I read this, I am left with the impression​ that you want something like this:<p>This week's lottery jackpot is $3,250,000 (three million, two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars). </p>​Is that correct?​ I'm a little concerned about how developers will interpret and apply this: I think we need to draw the line at NOT mandating that the text always be "in the clear" as my example shows (although I'm all for suggesting that as a Best Practice.) More to the point, would a "programmatically associated" alternative be sufficient? I.e. would the following meet your requirements/needs?<p>This week's lottery jackpot is <span title="three million, two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars">$3,250,000</span>. </p>​If yes, then is there a way we could include that language as well?​ Perhaps something like:Comprehension support is ​available​ ​ programmatically associated​​ via one​​ or more of the following:​To my thinking this achieves the following:No mandated impact on visual designsNo mandated impact on on-screen editorial contentSupports both coga-semantics solution as well as other solutions (We might also consider aria-label and aria-labelled by as possible solutions, but user-agents or plugins would need to play along)​This would also facilitate the requirement for relative and cardinal directions (similar techniques)​Thoughts?JF​On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:18 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:Hi folks,In response to the comments to the help success criteria  ( https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32) we have come out with the following changed wording. Please compare to the original (see bellow) and see if you are OK with the changes....new wording:Comprehension support is available via one or more of the following:  For numerical content: Charts, tables, graphics or non-numerical text content are available that summarize numerical information;For forms:  non-standard controls have instructions, and  multi-step forms provide information about a user's position in the form. Long  blocks of text:  are divide  with heading, keywords are visually emphasized or a summary is provided  For directions: Alternative terms are available for  relative and cardinal directions.  There are exceptions where:     the      content will be penalized for not conforming to a given style (such as a      dissertation or a Ph.D. proposal);   a      different structure is an essential part of the main function of the site      (for example, a game or a reading test);   if      the style is an essential part of the main function of the site, such as a      literary work; for numerical information where the target audience is in a profession that requires a knowledge of maths.      definitions:  - Keywords: Author defined terms that identify the purpose of the passage. (Note the understand section will describe this process of identifying keyword)  - Non-Standard controls: Scripted  interactive elements which do not behave like a named control in the host language.  - Long blocks of content are sections of text that are not divided  by a header, list, or named region and are 300 words or more (or xx characters in Chinese and Japanese) .        To help you compare here is the old version:Comprehension support is available via:       Charts, tables, or graphics to summarize complex numerical information;   Summaries of long documents;   Emphasis of key words in long documents;   Instructions for non-standard controls;   Information about a user's position in multi-step forms;   Alternative terms for relative and cardinal directions;   Non-numerical versions of numerical values.      All the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter-- John FoliotPrincipal Accessibility StrategistDeque Systems Inc.john.foliot@deque.comAdvancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion  -- John FoliotPrincipal Accessibility StrategistDeque Systems Inc.john.foliot@deque.comAdvancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion   
        
        

    
    
Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 22:06:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 5 June 2017 22:06:44 UTC