W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Interaction Context + UI + Content

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:22:16 -0500
To: "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>
Cc: "'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org'" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <BD406E51-E8BA-4DAE-B309-C02831F0034D@trace.wisc.edu>
I think it is still possible to find common ground.  I see us all circling the same problems -- and not fundamentally different.  Just haven't found the right balance yet.

I have seen MUCH wider gulfs in groups that were later able to find consensus.    I agree with Mikes comment that we need to stop defending and try to find out how we can adapt or evolve our current approaches to accommodate the issues raised by others. 

I think the approach of stepping back and looking at goals and then walking back is a good one.    


Gregg
 



On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:58 PM, "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov> wrote:

> Y’all should consider that neither the software developers nor procurement officers will have knowledge of the imprecisions.  Accept that someone is going to have to feed them more than the words the TF supplies. 
> The way I see it, we have two choices: 1) not agree or 2) be imprecise.  Inherently we can’t avoid both.
>  
> Pierce
>  
> From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:42 PM
> To: Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content
>  
> Peter
>  
> I’ll need to very carefully read your note again in the morning (when my brain is restored). But I believe that the solution to many of the apparent discrepancies between the pure IC approach and the grass roots “software” approach probably lies in some well drafted notes (possibly in both M376 and WCAG2ICT).
>  
> We may differ about which approach suffers from the greatest imprecision and lack of potential uniformity, but it looks as if we are converging towards a recognition that there is no 100% perfect solution and that the best solution will probably be achieved by means of well worded notes that help people to avoid getting trapped in those areas where the ambiguities exist.
>  
> As long as I am convinced that we have a workable solution I am reasonably happy that I can persuade most of my team to accept a solution that improves on what we have (and I hope that I can continue to deal effectively enough with the few that are instinctively reticent to revisit previously taken decisions).
>  
> I would like to resist any further “mine is better than yours” type arguments regarding the ambiguities. I guess that to date I have been very frustrated that there has been an inherent presumption that ambiguities only exist on the IC side and that the “software” side has no problems. The reality is quite clear that no solution is perfect and that our future efforts should be directed towards improving the interpretation of the IC-oriented and software-oriented ways of capturing what we need to say.
>  
> I think that the proposed survey, that avoids these terminology wars, is a very useful step in this direction. I am, for the first time, beginning to be optimistic that we will be making some progress on the remaining SCs and conformance.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>  
> From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
> Sent: 09 August 2012 23:15
> To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Interaction Context + UI + Content
>  
> Mike,
> 
> I think the M376 definition of "interaction context" is far less unwieldy than our draft definitions of "user interaction context".  However... I am still concerned that it is still sufficiently imprecise that software developers & procurement officers won't be able to apply it uniformly in a variety of software situations.
> 
> At the same time, except perhaps for 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks & 2.4.2 Page Titled & 2.4.5 Multiple Ways (and maybe, perhaps, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation) I'm not so sure that any such lack of uniformity hurts us.  Particularly if we add a further note along the lines of: "Note: it is not possible for any aspect of the software user interface to NOT be in an interaction context; all software UIs can always be decomposed into one or more interaction contexts."  For example, having 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold tied to an 'interaction context' (as you do in M376), it doesn't matter if one procurement officer says some software consists of 2 ICs whereas another says 1 or 3 - NO IC can violate this (or as we say, no part of the "software" can violate it) or it is a violation.  There might be confusion where there is a violation with regards to conformance statements...  But the conformance discussion is for another time.
> 
> 
> Mike - do you have any sense as to the receptivity of the M376 folks to a Note along the lines that I suggested above?
> 
> 
> Separately, regarding Mike's Conclusion #6 below, I frankly don't see the "software ambiguity" as any better/worse than what I see as the "interaction context ambiguity".  It has the same challenges for the same handful of SCs (2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.5, and maybe 3.2.3), and is the same non-issue for the rest => except when it comes to a discussion of detailed conformance reporting (what subset of an entire "software package" is there a conformance failure on if one app in that package is the source of the failure; vs. what subset of the entire "software package" is there a conformance failure on if one interaction context in that package is the source of the failure).
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 8/9/2012 2:28 PM, Michael Pluke wrote:
> Hello everyone
>  
> In the “interaction context” sub-group we have been debating for some time issues related to the need for and definition of a concept such as “interaction context” or “User interface context”. In this email I’d like to clarify some of the reasons why we find ourselves in this position.
>  
> The primary starting point for these discussions arose because the Mandate 376 people introduced this concept in our last two drafts. Ever since the  second US Section 508 ANPRM arrived our team have spent very many person weeks of effort trying to figure out how we can support the following statement:
>  
> “Software that provides a user interface shall conform to Level A and Level AA Success Criteria as defined by the Conformance Requirements specified in WCAG 2.0”
>  
> We immediately started looking for mappings between Web concepts and software concepts. As WCAG 2.0 conformance and Success Criteria are based around the Web page, we immediately looked to identify something that could directly map to a Web page. After a lot of discussion and consideration of alternatives (in the process of which we rejected simple terms like “software”) we arrived at:
>  
> “interaction context: that part of the user interface of a system in which the users interact with all the functions, containers, and information needed for carrying out some particular task or set of interrelated tasks
>  
> NOTE:   An interaction context can include but is not limited to things such as, the complete software window, a dialog box, message box, voice dialogue step, etc.”
>  
> The equivalence that we hope that we have achieved leads to the following:
>  
> -          A single Interaction Context (IC) is equivalent to a single Web page (in fact a web page nicely fits the M376 “interaction context” definition)
> -          Most software, that can contain several ICs, actually maps to “a set of Web pages” (not a Web page). Only simple software with a single IC maps to Web page.
>  
> Taking my favourite complex application (software), MS Outlook, as an example, this contains at least four main ICs:
>  
> -          Mail;
> -          Calendar;
> -          Contacts;
> -          Tasks.
>  
> These are clearly separate M376 ICs as they each support quite different user tasks. According to the M376 definition there will be a number of other ICs that are less obvious i.e. all of the modal dialogue boxes that can be shown when using any of the above and that impose themselves as the user task until dismissed.
>  
> There are several (even most) SCs that could actually be successfully applied to a complete set of Web pages e.g. 1.1.1 and 2.4.6 where it is required that there should be text alternatives and that headings and labels should describe topic or purpose no matter where they are in a set of Web pages. It is therefore true that these SCs could also be successfully applied to a complete set of ICs i.e. “software” or the “software UI”. However, this is not what the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements says should be done – these say that the SCs should be separately applied to each Web page – and this translates to each “interaction context”.
>  
> In SCs that relate to the behaviour of one Web page in a set of Web pages, the shortcut of applying the SC to a set of Web pages (which is what “software” and “software UI” translate to) breaks down. It is for these SCs that something like IC is (probably) needed.
> My Conclusions
>  
> 1)      The M376 “interaction context” approach sticks much more rigidly to the WCAG 2.0 approach – so this is why it plugs straight in to the WCAG Conformance Requirements without any modification needed to those requirements.
> 2)      The “software” and “software UI” approach actually guides the user away from a strict interpretation of the WCAG intent as it says that SCs should be applied to something that equates to a “set of Web pages”.
> 3)      The use of “software” and “software UI” will be inadequate for the few remaining problem SCs in WCAG2ICT that explicitly refer to “Web page”. Much cleverer wording will be needed if IC is not used.
> 4)      However, the “software” and “software UI” approach leads to much greater efficiency and simplicity when applying many SCs to software i.e. the whole software can be tested as one piece and it does not need to be broken down into its component ICs (which could be a difficult task) in order to test.
> 5)      Without a term like “interaction context” WCAG2ICT may have great difficulty in addressing Conformance Requirements. It will not be possible to say how any SC should be applied as the current WCAG2ICT guidance is separately stating what each SC applies to. Some SCs apply to “software”, some to “software UIs” and maybe we have other variants. We may or may not be able to rationalize this. In all cases so far, I don’t think that we are scoping any of the SCs to a unit that clearly equates to an analogue of a Web page.
> 6)      There is fundamentally no clear boundary to what is meant by software. This means that one supplier may interpret software as a single application. Another may take it to mean a shrink-wrapped software suite. Another might take it to mean the total diverse multi-supplier software bundle that they supply! Such ambiguity is a serious problem when trying to interpret how to apply the SCs and also when trying to compare between suppliers who have interpreted “software” in a very different way. This lack of consistency in interpretation is one of the key criticisms of some people against IC – but this inconsistency could be very much greater when interpreting “software”! “Interaction context” does attempt to try to define and constrain the scope across which an SC should be applied. It appears that “software” and its variants do not get close to achieving this scoping precision.
>  
> I would like to ponder my conclusion 4, which reveals a potential weakness of the current M376 approach – but one which I hope may be addressable by a few simple statements that indicate that some SCs, that strictly apply to one IC, can be applied to the whole software for the sake of efficiency.
>  
> I think that WCAG2ICT will need to continue to ponder issues 3, 5 and 6. I will of course try to actively help in this pondering!
>  
> I would like to arrive at a situation where it is clear that M376 and WCAG2ICT are saying the same thing. M376 will not be presenting our material in exactly the same form as WCAG2ICT as this does not suit the needs of our standard (EN). Similarly, WCAG2ICT cannot adopt the M376 way of presenting its guidance as this does not meet W3Cs needs.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>  
> PS: I believe that the current “User Interface Context (by an author)” definition is inferior to the M376 “interaction context” definition as it depends on the term “navigation commands” and relies on separately identifying “user interface elements” and “presented information”. Unfortunately I think that the task of evolving the definition from its M376 roots got diverted into a string of updates to fix some supposed weaknesses that were being raised.
>  
>  
> -- 
> <image001.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 506 9522 
> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be sure to use: peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me
> <image002.gif>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment




Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 05:22:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 August 2012 05:22:51 GMT