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: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:18:15 -0700
Message-ID: <50008287.8000906@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Gregg,


>>
>>
>>> *...*
>>> **
>>>> <PK> Thus if I have two windows in my UIC, and both of them contain 
>>>> navigation buttons (e.g. "Next" & "Previous"), and they were in 
>>>> different orders, they would not be in violation of this SC (with 
>>>> UIC).
>>>
>>> *GV:  Not at that moment.  (This is what I call an extreme example 
>>> that is unlikely and is constructed to test something -- but OK -- 
>>> for the moment it would pass)    But when you open the window on 
>>> another document tomorrow it would be a new UI Context because the 
>>> information would  be different.  And at that point you would be in 
>>> conflict with either instance one or instance two.
>>> *
>>
>> PK2: "Tomorrow"?  Using this thinking in the web world, if I have a 
>> single page web site, and if on one day the content is X and tomorrow 
>> the content is Y but in both days there is a block of content at the 
>> top - that is "repeated content" and so the SC applies.  That makes 
>> no sense in the web world.  Why should it make sense in the software 
>> world across multiple times I run a software application (e.g. once 
>> today and once tomorrow)?
>
> *GV2: Sure it does.  Think about it.   The purpose of the provision is 
> to keep people from having to step through the same controls over and 
> over. Whether that is stepping over them on pages that are next to 
> each other -- or a page where the content keeps changing so they go 
> back to the same url and have to step through the same controls is 
> essentially the same.   So it makes perfect sense though for web pages 
> you would usually have them on different pages -- so the SC is 
> targeted that way.
> *

PK3: OK.  I have a weather service page.  Only page on the site.  It has 
a block at the top of the page that is always there (ads ad such).  This 
page updates every 4 hours.  By your logic 3.2.3 applies to it, because 
it is a different page 4 hours from now.  Same logic for 2.4.1.  So both 
3.2.3 and 2.4.1 apply.

Presumably then a WCAG assessment couldn't be complete unless it is was 
carried out over multiple days to look for changes to all pages 
(particularly those that didn't otherwise share any navigation links 
with any other pages, and those that didn't otherwise share any blocks 
to bypass with any other pages) - in order to determine whether 3.2.3 
and 2.4.1 should apply to them.

Yes, this is a highly contrived example.  But I see it as fundamentally 
the same thing as a single non-web application that is a document 
editor, for which you claim 3.2.3 and 2.4.1 apply because when the user 
chooses to edit a different document this single window becomes one of a 
set of windows and therefore 3.2.3/2.4.1 kick in.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> <PK> However, if instead we used language from the consensus text 
>>>> for 2.4.2 Page Titled 
>>>> <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/2-operable/24-provide-ways-to-help-users-navigate-find-content-and-determine-where-they-are/242-page-titled> 
>>>> and tied this to "top-most explicit groupings of user interface 
>>>> components (things like "windows", "dialog boxes", "frames", and 
>>>> "screens")", then our pair of windows with the inconsistent 
>>>> relative order of "Next" and "Previous" WOULD be a violation of the SC.
>>>
>>> *GV:  already covered as above without using this long and 
>>> indeterminate language.   I understand it but I think it would lose 
>>> many people.  And one can probably come up with many ambiguous 
>>> examples here.   But the real point is - why use a long text string 
>>> with embedded example list (not a good idea in standards) when you 
>>> have a simpler concept and term that can be used?
>>> *
>>
>> PK2: Point taken - the Page Titled "top level frame" language at this 
>> point occurs in only one SC, and is longish at 76 words (I'm looking 
>> at the one sentence in consensus 2.4.2 starting with "However, since 
>> there is always..."; if you count the entire software paragraph of 
>> 2.4.2 you get 128 words).  The UI Context definition with notes 
>> (using the shorter "or perhaps more simply" text) is 397 words.
>
> *GV2: That is like saying that WCAG is 20,000 words long because its 
> support documents are long. user interface context is only 3 words.   
> The definition supports the term and the notes do as well.       Once 
> you learn what it means -- it is just 3 words each time it is used.
> *

PK3: No.  My point is that if we find "top level frame" (TLF) is useful 
in a bunch of places, we would consider pulling it out into a definition 
and then simply using that defined term/phrase in those places.  So 
saying that "the text is too long to use in multiple places" is only 
different here because unlike UIC we didn't start out by making it a 
defined term.  AND I note that TLF's definition is 1/4th to 1/7th the 
length of UIC.  Being so much shorter suggests it is a simpler concept 
to understand, though it isn't dispositive on that score.

>
>> At this point we are considering using UI Context in 4 SCs (5 if you 
>> count the use in the note in 3.1.2).  If it turns out "top level 
>> frame" works in several SCs (not just 2.4.2 and 3.2.3), then we would 
>> more likely pull that out as a term, define it once, and use in in 
>> the SCs that it applies in (e.g. "Definition: top level frame is 
>> <blah blah>", and then we say that for 3.2.3 the analog to web page 
>> is top level frame, etc.).
>
> *GV2: that would be equivalent but I think 'top level frame' is very 
> technical and hard to understand  (much harder than user interface 
> context).   I also think it is much harder to apply in different 
> contexts.   But that is just me.
> *

TLF is decidedly technical.  So is URI and many other terms we use in 
W3C standards.  The real question is whether it is significantly 
easier/harder for the consumers of this document to understand and to 
apply consistently.  Those consumers being: (a) developers, (b) 
procurement officers, and (c) folks assessing accessibility of software.

It might be interesting to use UIC and TLF once each in an SC that we 
sent out for public comment, and see whether and how many comments we 
get on those concepts.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First question to Gregg: do you agree with my reading of the 
>>>> definition of UIC, and my application of it to this SC & this 
>>>> situation?
>>>
>>> *GV:  No.   You did find a way to temporarily conform with a not 
>>> nice example.  But I don't think you fully understood UI Context. 
>>>  We have added a note to make it clearer.   But your example fails 
>>> with both UI context and your longer text. *
>>
>> PK2: One of my core concerns with UI Context is that a single UI 
>> Context encompasses multiple top-level frames.
> *GV2: depends on what you call a top level frame.   If you have each 
> window be a TLF, the each palette is a TLF.   And tearing a palette 
> off gives you the same interface but a very different TLF profile.   
>  And if you have the main window and its palettes be one TLF -- where 
> do you label it?*

PK3: My initial proposal for 2.4.2 was to state that if EVERY 
intentional grouping of UI components had a descriptive name, then 
certainly all the ones that were "web page" analogs would have them.  In 
discussions with you this got trimmed to TLF UI groupings which we then 
consensed on.  Under my initial proposal, the descriptive name could 
stay the same, and would apply when the palette was attached or in its 
own window.  Under consensus 2.4.2 the name need only be descriptive 
when it is in a TLF.

With respect to 3.2.3 and consistent navigation, it would only matter if 
the palette contained the same controls (e.g. "move to next photograph", 
"move to previous photograph") in the same order as some other 
palette/window/whatever, and if it could be torn off. An edge case that 
is covered by TLF-ing 3.2.3.

> *
> *
>> This concern arises for me in several SCs that we are considering 
>> using UI Context for.  I'm not trying to construct abstruse examples 
>> for the sole purpose of attacking something I don't like.  I 
>> fundamentally think that "multiple top level windows" is a bad analog 
>> to "web page" for multiple SCs.  In a couple of places I think "web 
>> page" maps to the entire application, in others to a single top-level 
>> window (or screen).  What I see UI Context doing is trying to 
>> straddle these two different things with one concept, and in so 
>> straddling, we get any number of edge cases which fall through the 
>> cracks.
>
> *GV2: not sure which you are referring to but you do know that I am 
> not suggesting we use UIC where we can use a simpler term. *

PK3: I believe TLF is simpler than UIC.  You have objected to using TLF 
here on the grounds that we would repeat the text and that repetition is 
less simple.  If we make TLF a "term", then... it terms of size & number 
of concepts to think about per SC that uses it, they are the same; and 
the questions then become: is the TLF concept easier/harder to 
understand than UIC and is TLF eaiser/harder for consumers of this 
document to fit into the various SCs.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Second question: which outcome do you think we want?  Should the 
>>>> "Next" | "Prev" in showing non-modal window A while "Prev" | "Next" 
>>>> showing in non-modal window B be allowed or not?
>>>
>>> *GV:  clearly not -- and it isn't with either. *
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *This one is trickier than usual  (the whole UI Context - or any of 
>>> our terms/concepts --  and software) because windows are used both 
>>> for palettes - and navigation is the same for both.   But with 
>>> repeated use - everything falls out and works.
>>> *
>>
>> PK2: But I find your repeated use construction very uncomfortable.  
>> As I noted above, we don't use it in WCAG for web pages.  Why should 
>> that somehow make a block repeated for software when the exact same 
>> behavior doesn't make it so for web pages?  AND when we can address 
>> the criterion by using "top level frame" instead of UI Context?
>
> *GV2: not sure I see how TLC would work in key uses.   How would it 
> work with a main window,  floating palettes and perhaps a non-modal 
> dialog box?*

PK3: So let's construct an example.  A photo viewing/editing application 
that also retrieves images directly from my camera or from an inserted 
memory card (I actually use an application just like this regularly with 
my Canon camera).  When I'm in the window that gives me a direct view of 
what's on the memory card in my camera over a USB connection, there is a 
"next photo" button and a "previous photo" button.  I have a slightly 
different window when this same application is looking at the memory 
card when it is inserted directly into my computer, but it also has a 
"next photo" and a "previous photo" pair of buttons.  Likewise when I'm 
looking at the photos in a directory on my hard drive: "next photo" and 
"previous photo" buttons.  Perhaps in the hard-drive-viewing case the 
"next photo" and "previous photo" buttons are in a palette that can 
optionally be torn off into its own top level frame.

Since we have 3 (or 4) top level frames in which the same navigation 
commands are repeated, they must appear in the same relative order (e.g. 
"previous photo" first to the left and "next photo" immediately after 
that to the right).  If they don't, this application fails 3.2.3.

Now: if instead of TLF we used UIC, and all windows are open at the same 
time (which they can be!) we have a single UIC so we have to go to some 
lengths to create a "repetition situation" in order to trigger 3.2.3 -> 
e.g. observe that this set of windows tomorrow might be looking at a 
different set of photos on a different memory card / hard drive folder 
than it is looking at today, and so therefore we really have multiple 
UICs after all and so therefore 3.2.3 applies.

Do you see why this feels contrived to me (the introduction of 
temporality in order to trigger provisions) as compared to using top 
level frame?  [or in some cases better still, petitioning WCAG and the 
W3C to allow us to derive our software guidance more directly from INTENT]


Regards,

Peter
-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 506 9522 <tel:+1%20650%20506%209522>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 20:18:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 July 2012 20:18:54 GMT