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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:18:51 -0500
To: Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>
Cc: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <3619DCF5-6EDA-4F89-A7F6-19E3DA776437@trace.wisc.edu>
look at the new proposal 
it resolves this

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net









On Aug 13, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com> wrote:

> Although WCAG doesn’t mention website specifically, I think there is a strong enough implication that this would be the commonly used reference when talking about set of web pages. Also the term is used in  “Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0”.
>  
> And if we are replacing “web page” with “document”, and if we rely on subjective criteria for determining what a “set of documents” is, we will end up with:
>  
> 1.       Authors, testers and users scratching their heads about what constitutes a “set of documents” and/or
> 2.       Authors claiming that this SC doesn’t apply because their documents can be used independently.
>  
> Regards,
> Kiran Kaja
> Accessibility Engineer
> Adobe Systems Europe
> +44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct)
> 80005 (Internal)
> +44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile)
> Kkaja@adobe.com
> Twitter.com/kirankaja12
>  
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV] 
> Sent: 13 August 2012 15:12
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Michael Pluke; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content
>  
> I will go back to the SC and associated materials again and walk through from start to end, to ensure I’m not overlooking items we already address.  My impression for this 2.4.5 item is that behavior outside Web is slightly different than inside Web because Web has an assumed linked set of pages almost by definition, while this is not true outside that environment—but can be in some cases.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:53 AM
> To: Hoffman, Allen
> Cc: Michael Pluke; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Interaction Context + UI + Content
>  
>  
> 
>  
> On Aug 13, 2012, at 7:52 AM, "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the problem we are having with 2.4.5 for documents is that even when we apply it it either requires authors to change the content itself, or rely on outside functionality to provide alternatives.  What are the analogs to the sufficient we provide in WCAG now which would be acceptable outside the Web scoping?
>  
>  
> It wouldn't require you to change the content if the content were already met this provision. And why is it unusual that something that does not meet the criteria would have to change in order to meet it. This is true for webpages as well. What am I missing?




Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 07:19:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 August 2012 07:19:25 GMT