RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content

Gregg

I think that your last point sums up the situation for this type of remote access.

A fully accessible version of this type of remote access is, and is likely to remain, an extreme technical challenge - as it really requires a completely new approach to anything that currently exists (to my knowledge).

Best regards

Mike

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: 14 August 2012 08:21
To: Kiran Kaja
Cc: Hoffman, Allen; Michael Pluke; Gregg Vanderheiden; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Interaction Context + UI + Content

All web pages are remote access if you think about it.

the kind of remote access you are talking about is independent of WCAG -- but not independent of our software guidelines

however - it is easy to address because that type of remote access would fail most of the SC as it should.

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 9:34 AM, Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com<mailto:kkaja@adobe.com>> wrote:


Hi Allen, I agree that remote access is a major accessibility concern. But I am not sure that WCAG2ICT document is the right place to address it. it is more a platform level issue and should perhaps be address in a place like Chapter 5 of the 2011 ANPRM.

Kiran Kaja
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems Europe
+44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct)
80005 (Internal)
+44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile)
Kkaja@adobe.com<mailto:Kkaja@adobe.com>
Twitter.com/kirankaja12<http://Twitter.com/kirankaja12>

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV<http://HQ.DHS.GOV>]
Sent: 13 August 2012 15:28
To: Michael Pluke; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content

Whew!  I'm glad you said it also.


I hate to say this but remote access is a huge issue for accessibility.

The two solutions, run AT on remote and mirror functionality, and run AT on local and expect access to all accessibility attributes is critical, and no preference is really defined in WCAG, at the end of the day something should be said regarding such applicability.

My preference is that AT should be able to run local and access accessibility information, whether from local or remote-e.g. the local rendering component must have access to the accessibility information from the remote system and be able to then re-render them on the local system.  Running AT remotely and mirroring functionality has some value, but there is a lot more work to do to get this really supported.




From: Michael Pluke [mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<http://castle-consult.com>]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:22 AM
To: Hoffman, Allen; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content

Hi

I think that mirroring is something that we do not need to worry about. With mirroring, if there is the one interaction context in which the user interacts, then the mirroring merely provides multiple representations of the visual representation of that interaction context.

This single interaction context has to meet WCAG. The act of mirroring the visual display parts of that IC should not in any way affect whether or not it meets WCAG (which is our concern).

Best regards

Mike

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV<http://HQ.DHS.GOV>]
Sent: 13 August 2012 15:10
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Peter Korn; Michael Pluke; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content

Wow, I didn't consider multiple displays and I really don't think that is considered by the initial WCAG SC either.  It's a tough one however.  Focus would be in both renderings so they would be considered the same UI context to me.



From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]<mailto:[mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Hoffman, Allen
Cc: Peter Korn; Michael Pluke; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Interaction Context + UI + Content


On Aug 13, 2012, at 8:16 AM, "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV<mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>> wrote:

If you have the same content open in two windows, ideally you should see a title difference, e.g. (1) (2) somewhere in the title.  I would think this should be considered separate UI contexts as I don't think I can figure out how focus would be in both simultaneously.  On the other hand I could see something where comparisons are taking place where focus change in one window effects the other window which may have no title, or same title as they are probably something like two views of the same thing showing differences, or other comparative analysis.  Still seems like focus drives ui-context, e.g. if you don't have focus your context should be restricted to the "window" where you do.


if they are truly identical in all respects then I don't think they would need to have different titles because it really doesn't matter which one you find - the are in fact the same thing. For example mirroring the display on your laptop, you don't require that everything be labeled a different label on the mirror.   The information exists in two places but you don't care which one is which since they are identical.

 However if they can be acted upon independently, for example you can scroll them to different positions, or you can do other things different on the two, and they are not an exact mirror, then I think they would need to have two different titles and this is in fact what I've seen most programs do.