W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Discussion: Applications

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:46:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4F7DCC4B.7030909@oracle.com>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Eric,

As a start, it might be worth noting in introductory text the range of 
things being covered by this methodology.  In step 3 on selecting a 
representative sample, we might again note that for complex web sites & 
for large web applications, there may "Exemplar functions" of a web app 
which should definitely included, as distinct from "rarely used 
functions" - some of which should be perhaps be included anyway as part 
of the sampling process (to not ignore them entirely).

By the way, I thought of what might be a better example to use: a 
configuration page/dialog for setting per-instance-overridable defaults 
(e.g. whether the default currency is expressed in Dollars vs. Euros vs. 
Yen, which can be expressly set each time by the user when they enter 
the currency in the spreadsheet web-app).  If that config page/dialog 
has an accessibility error (e.g. an unlabeled combo-box), but the 
per-instance setting has no error (e.g. the "set currency for this 
field" config page/dialog) - then... there is a good argument to be made 
that the importance of the accessibility of the default configuration 
setting isn't so great.

Ummm.... this raises another question...  In Section 508 among other 
places we have a notion that all functionality must be accessible, not 
necessarily all ways of achieving all functionality.  The example I made 
in the paragraph above also connects to this question.  It would be a 
clear WCAG conformance failure if one part of a page failed one of the 
checkpoints.  BUT... what about the situation in which the failed part 
of the page was fully duplicated elsewhere.  This is a contrived 
edge-case for a single web page, but not at all unusual for a complex 
web site or web application (after all, we already have the notion of 
multiple-ways in WCAG).  Is there any conformance distinction to be made 
between a feature/aspect failure when it is the sole way of doing 
something vs. when it is one of multiple ways and the other ways are 
accessible?


Regards,

Peter

On 4/5/2012 8:45 AM, Velleman, Eric wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> What shall we say about auditing complex applications that are very large and offer enormous amounts of features (some important, some less important)? Example would be online document editors, online mail, online photo applications. Or should we point to ATAG and UAAG?
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric
>

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:46:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT