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

Re: Looking at SC 3.1.1 Language of Page with "UI Context"

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:25:55 +0200
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <142E94F7-7F79-4BFC-A825-4E47848996F4@trace.wisc.edu>



On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Peter Korn wrote:

> Hi gang,
> 
> SC 3.1.1 was not one we reached consensus on. We've had some discussion on it, and I feel that proposal #3 was getting there.
> 
> My thoughts on that can be found at the Applying UI Context page in the sixth row, but to facilitate discussion, I reiterate them here.
> 
> The UIC Proposal is:
> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0  (above) with "document or user interface context" substituted for "Web Page".
> 
> Note that some document formats can use separate human languages for output and input purposes. In such cases both languages should be programmatically determinable.
> 
> For software, there are some platforms and software types where there is no assistive technology supported method for marking the language for the different "user interface contexts" or for marking that the application doesn’t match the “local” language, as marked in the platform, and it would not be possible to meet this success criterion with those platforms or software types.
> 
> NOTE: Inheritance is one common method.  For example a document or application provides the language that it is using and it can be assumed that all user interface contexts within that document or application will be using the same language unless it is indicated.
> I don't see how UI Context really helps us here.  It is unlikely that two UI Contexts in the same software application will have different languages. 

GV:  OK.  But not sure why you are raising that.

> Granularity is either at the application level (most common) or at the UI component and language passage level (which gets us to SC 3.1.2).  Scoping this to software applications seems cleaner and more direct to me.  Also easier to understand and test.

GV:  Agree -

Not sure you are correct that it can't happen lower -- but scoping at the application level might be possible. 

  More to the point however - is the part that starts "For software....".   It notes that for some technologies there is no way to mark language even at the Application level.    That is something we CAN do and is a sure sign to Access Board, M376 and others that this is something that at a minimum should be scoped.  

> 
> 
> Peter
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
> 
> 




Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 01:26:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 01:26:28 GMT