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

Re: Looking at SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation with "UI Context"

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:37:46 +0200
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <3790F309-3771-4033-A6F1-BFC0ADEB1281@trace.wisc.edu>

On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:47 AM, Peter Korn wrote:

> Hi gang,
> 
> SC 3.2.3 was not one we reached consensus on, nor have we had much discussion about it.
> 
> My thoughts on that can be found at the Applying UI Context page in the seventh row, but to facilitate discussion, I reiterate them here.
> 
> The software portion of the UIC Proposal is:
> This applies to software aspects of products directly as written and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG (above) with the word “user interface context” substituted for Web Page and "software program" substituted for "Set of Web Pages".
> I don't think this SC really make sense in software.

GV: I don't follow you here.   It makes lots of sense to me.   This says that if you have two controls that do the same thing that they should be named consistently.     It is always done with good design. (But then many of the SC would be met with good design).   The purpose is to avoid bad design.  

>   I find it to be a lot like Bypass Blocks.  It is either generally automatically satisfied

GV:  how would it be automatically satisfied.   There is nothing automatic that I can see about naming buttons or controls. 

> (and so of little added value),

GV:  based on what?   This can be very confusing cognitively. 

> or it can be looked at based on Intent and Understanding, and applied more thoughtfully to software (e.g. for cognitive disabilities, some variant of "things that look the same should behave the same, things that behave differently should look different").

GV:  What do you mean "applied more thoughtfully".    Do you mean write a new SC?    
Isn't what you propose essentially what this SC says already? 

>   I think the right thing to do is go back to WCAG and see if we have their blessing to either say this doesn't really apply, or to develop something more fitting and appropriate to software.

GV: Again - the WCAG has no authority to do either of these - so it cannot grant that authority to the task force.   I hate to see us continually not working on language we can use -- instead of trying to rewrite WCAG or get permission to write new SC or cut SC. 

There are examples in the previous items as to how to handle things that are a problem _--- by pointing out the problem.

I don't see any problem with this one though. 


> 
> 
> 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 01:38:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 01:38:13 GMT