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: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:24:04 -0500
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <D80A4EDC-398A-49A1-B999-388C338E9B64@trace.wisc.edu>

GV 4: Great comment Peter -  see below 



On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:39 AM, Peter Korn wrote:

> Gregg,
> 
> PK4: In case there was any misunderstanding... I am *not* proposing TLF as a general replacement for UIC - and more specifically I am not proposing that it as the mapping to use everywhere (or even everywhere we haven't otherwise reached consensus) in place of "web page".
> 
> WCAG was written in a world where every web page has a clear identifier - the URL - and every web page is either a fairly self-contained "world" (with frames and what-not) or part of some defined "set of pages".  This is not the more general software world.
> 
> Fundamentally I think the "web page" SCs can be broken down into roughly three groups:
> Those where the natural analog to "web page" is "the entire software user interface" (e.g. "the world")
> Those where the natural analog to "web page" is top-level-frame
> Those for which neither "the entire software UI" nor "the top-level frame" is the right analog (the "weird ones" -> typically those referring to "set of web pages")
GV 4: I think this is a very good observation. We might tweak your categories a bit with discussion -- but I think this is a very good way to think/examine this   (though I don't agree that web page definition is easy - think of web apps.  In the end the WG made it clear -- but not easy - as that was the best the WG could do)

> 
> This is the core of my objection to UI Context - it is trying to cover all three of those groups
> 
GV 4: I think it has been posted many times - that there was no-one saying that that UIC should replace Web Pages in all the SC.   It is frustrating when it seems that the concept is rejected for things that are not true about it.    Several people DID say that we should try plugging it in to all the places and see if there were problems.  But those same people (in the same postings most or all the time) said that there was no suggesting to replace simpler terms where they worked.    I think the UIC was to handle the places where you might be thinking Frames approach -- though it may be a bit broader in application than that. Not sure. 
> and I think it not only fails to cover all three, but by trying to cover them all it actually isn't the best fit for any of them.  E.g. where "UI Context is all Windows you can get to via navigation (but not activation)", it doesn't actually quite cover all of the software UI -> you need to ensure that that provision encompasses all of the UI Contexts that might be shown.  And because a single UI Context can be more than a single window, stuff like page title gets weird.  Etc.
> 
GV 4: again - no one is suggesting this -- so you don't need to keep arguing against it.  It just confuses the discussion.
> 
> Further comments in-line below.
> 
> On 7/13/2012 8:43 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> GV3:  Interesting discussion/ comments.    I can see what you are trying here with TLF instead of UIC.  But have questions - and other comments.  Not sure it works as well as UIC and some parts I don't see how TLF works. 
>> 
>> Comments below. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Peter Korn wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> GV3: Hi Peter,  I don't think that is contrived.  I think it is a fair example.   So lets look at the purpose of the Provision.    If a person looks at a page or set of navigation links just once, then it is fair to assume they would like to step through them to figure out what they are.  But if a person is going to keep running into the same block of information, they they should be able to jump over it so they don't have to keep reading through the same long list of items before the get to the new information on the page.   
>> 
>> Now there are two ways that you keep running into the same long list of items.   1) they are repeated on the top of each page you go to on a site.   2) every time you go back to the site -- and need to see the same page because the content keeps changing   (essentially a 'new page' at the old URL) -- you have to tab through the same content to get to the new page of information.   This is your example above.
>> 
>> So the intent was to avoid a person having to keep seeing repeated information.  This  is also related to the "web site at one URL" question where you could have one URL that keeps changing the content of the page -- so that you never leave one url but you actually see the equivalent of an entire web site at the one url.  
>> 
>> While a strict constructionist might claim that this means that many of the SC don't apply since there is only one web page on the site,  most people would say that that site should be treated as it would if all of the virtual pages were real pages at new URLs.   Each time the page substantially changed, it would be treated as a new page even though the entire web site was at the same URL.   This in fact is a good point that regulators should pick up and make part of their  regulations to keep sites from skirting the whole WCAG by simply using a tactic of keeping the whole site at one URL.
> 
> PK4: I'm not sure that "most people would say" that.  I rather think that most folks would say that can be no repeated block(s) among multiple pages if the set is a single page.
GV 4:  What does this mean?  Is there  a typo?      How can there be multiple pages in a set if the set is 1?   Or are you saying that most people would say that if you implement the whole site as one WebApp page -- that you should be able to ignore all of the SC that relate to multiple pages?   Please clarify? 

>   I think WCAG assessment tools should be a good indication of what "most people would say".  Do any of them require that you evaluate a site over time in order to determine that contents at a single URL change in order to invoke SC 3.2.3?  Please cite product names.

GV 4:  What WCAG assessment tools?  Do you mean tools by third parties?      Any time you have a Web App - you have the same "page" changing over time.  Each time you click on something -- the page changes content.  As noted above, you can implement the whole site in one page.   So that page changes over time - from click to click.   

It sounds like you are saying that implementing a web site as one page would mean that you only need to evaluate the page that is on the site when you start? 

I'm not following something.   Please elaborate.


> 
>> 
>> So this brings us to what the ICT equivalent would be.  There are two bits here that both independently get you to the same location.   
>>  1) On websites, the norm is have a template that you use and then you put different content on different pages into that template.    The navigation bar on the template would constitute repeated text (even though it only existed once on a template - it would show up at the top of each page.)   In ICT the equivalent would be a window frame that shows up at the top of each document you open.  So opening different documents (one at at time - just like looking at web pages one at at time) would yield repeated blocks of items (menus or ribbons) at the top of each document. 
>>  2) the same rationale as the "web site all at one URL".  Where the URL (or the "document")  stays the same but all of the contents change.  the user repeatedly sees the same block of items each time the come to the page to see the "new page of information"
>> 
>> 
>> 

GV 4:   PK - can you tell me what you think the purpose of the 'Repeated blocks" provision is?   And why that would not apply to a page that you must repeated view in order to know it current contents - because they keep changing?   Would that not trigger the exact behavior that the SC was designed to prevent (e.g. a user having to keep stepping over the same block of controls or text or whatever that they had read before. in order to get to the different content?)


>> 
>> 
>>>>>>> <PK> However, if instead we used language from the consensus text for 2.4.2 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.
>> 
>> GV3: Fair enough.  So you are suggesting we create a new term (top level frame) and define it and use it.   That is something to discuss.  I think that it is more technical and will be confused with "frames" that actually exist in some technologies.  Also the definition isn't really a lot shorter.  The UIC just has lots of examples and notes to help teach the concept.  I expect "frames" will need much more before it will be understandable by non-programmers.   
> 
> PK4: I am suggesting that IF we find that the top-level-frame concept fits best for multiple SCs, THEN we pull it out into a defined term and simply use the term in those multiple SCs.  And of course, if/when we decide to do that, we should bring a higher level of scrutiny to the definition (including all of the questions you raise above around whether it is too technical, etc.)

GV 4: How is this different than what is being proposed for UIC?   (remember that no one is proposing that it be applied to all SC or any more than it fits.)   
GV 4: If you see it as a parallel to this - then I would suggest you fill it out so that it can be compared. 
> 
>> 
>> Question:   When you have a document window open and 3 floating palette windows -- those should all be considered one entity  (tearing a menu or menubar free should change the dynamic -- just the layout options)  what would the Top Level Frame be,  where would it be, and where would its name or other attributes be found that would                   not also include another document window open in the same app?  None of the windows clearly are the TLF.   
>> 
>> Also - the same question when the app is implemented as separate parallel windows from the start -- and none is "torn off" of any of the others.  
> 
> PK4: It will take more time than I have at this moment to go through windowing GUI terms to give you a precise definition of a top-level-frame from that fairly well understood CS graphics discipline.  Fundamentally any modal window and any window that be moved independently of all others (e.g. isn't an MDI-style window that is constrained to the boundary of the parent window it is "in") is a top level frame.  In your example above with 3 floating palette windows, there are 4 top level frames.  When they are "re-attached" and become toolbars, they stop being top-level frames.  
> 

GV 4: I see this as a fatal flaw,   since tearing the palettes off shouldn’t fundamentally change the situations -- and I doubt if the palettes would all pass the SC - though we would have to think of all the possible types of tear off items that could exist.     But I'm open to listening.  Just seem wrong -- and I thought you argued earlier that if tearing the menus off meant everything changed was something that was a fatal flaw in UIC (before it was understood that UIC didn’t do that).

> Under SC 2.4.2 (with the TLF approach) they would need titles when they are top-level, and stop needing titles when they are re-attached.
> 
>> 
>>>>> 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.  
>> 
>> GV3: Might be.   As noted earlier -- the exact name etc for UIC is not key - it is the general concept.   if TLF can fill that -- there is no religion that UIC be used.   I am just one person who can seem to figure out what the TLF would be for key situations and the definition doesn’t lead me to an answer
> 
> PK4: As I noted at the top of this missive, TLF is not a concept I propose as a universal web page replacement.  I think it works best in several SCs that use "web page" but definitely not all of them.

GV 4: I see that.   But my comment was not about that.  UIC was not proposed to do that either (at least not in recent memory -- I think M376 did and we did at the start).   As mentioned above -- we DID think that we should see what happened if tried in all SC - and it would be good it if it did fit -- though where simpler words fit it would be good to use the simpler terms. 
> 
>> 
>> Tell me more about eh TLF and how it would apply to different groups of windows.  (don't worry about making your definition get as long as UIC - the definition is the definition -- not the number of notes to help teach or clarify it).   And both are about the same length I think.
> 
> How are these "groups of windows" related to each other?  Can they move entirely independently of each other, with none contained entirely within the other?  Then they are all independent top-level-frames.  A group of them might all belong to the same application (in which case they would fully contain the currently visible "software user interface" of that application in a GUI.

GV 4: Thanks.   That is clear now.   Concerns are mentioned above -- but this is clear now thanks.
> 
>> Another problem with TLF is that it doesn’t seem to account for the Template or " New page of content" issues though perhaps they could be handled in a similar manner to UIC.  
> 
> PK4: I think that issue is entirely separate from TLF vs. UIC.  AND... I think that the right way to address those issues is by going from INTENT.

GV 4: Don't understand the comment. 

> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> GV3: right.  good idea but beyond the SC 
>> 
>>>   In discussions with you this got trimmed to TLF UI groupings which we then consensed on. 
>> 
>> GV3: right again.   til I lost track of what the TLF would be for key situations -- and the proposal from M376 seemed to work better in more places.
>> 
>> I haven't checked but does TLF work if plugged into all the places Web Page is used.  (Not suggesting we replace simpler text with this -- but if it is going to replace UIC as a concept it should fit in more places I would think. 
> 
> PK4: As I wrote above, no it does not.  But then, I claim that UIC doesn't either.  I think it fits better than UIC does for some provisions, and not at all for others.

GV 4:  I see that you don't think of it as universal.    And UIC doesn’t either.    But I think UIC fits better here - -and in more places -- and even in places where there are simpler words that we SHOULD RETAIN.    But again - the best would be for you to flesh out exactly what the TLF is and to how many SC you are thinking it would apply as an equivalent to  Web Page(s)

> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> GV3: if it was in its own window -- then the parent window would no longer be the TLF.  So what would be the TLF? 
> 
> If a toolbar gets "torn off" from an existing TLF, it becomes its own TLF and all of the TLF rules apply to it at that point.  If it happened to already have a descriptive name while "attached", then the name doesn't need to change upon being "torn off".
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> GV3: I still don't know what the TLF is for a group of windows that work as one app.  Whether they are torn off or just come as a cluster at startup.  The APP would seem to be the TLF but then every other document opened up would also belong to that TLF and you were treating them as separate.  So I keep losing what the TLF would be? 
>> 
>> This is covered in UIC.  But I can't find it in TLF.
> 
> A single TLF doesn't encompass an application of multiple windows.  Each window is it's own TLF.  The "thing" that is the full collection of windows in an application is "the software user interface".
> 
>> 
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> GV3:  Agree - TLF could be a term like UIC.   and if it works better could be used instead of UIC.  But I don't think it is easier to understand -- (I thought I did at one time - but don't anymore)  and I'm not sure it works as well across SC's.  But am open to it if it turns out it is with further information   
> 
> PK4: Again see my opening comments about the scope of TLF.
> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> GV3: You are correct that UIC works here too.    I don't see this as being "at some lengths".   See discussion above.   This repetitive situation is key for single window apps where a person has to get past the same block of information for each document they open all day long.   Each new page has new information but with the same frame.    The TLF would fail this important situation.   The UIC doesn’t.  
> 
> PK4: I see no different between TLF and UIC for this issue.  Either you decide that an application consisting of a single window in which the contents may change over time is somehow covered by "repeated blocks" (because the content can change) or you decide it doesn't.  Doesn't matter if that single window application is a TLF or a UIC.  Unless you somehow further modify the UIC definition to explicitly call out this situation (which could just as easily be called out only in that SC).  

GV 4:  I don't see how they are the same.   The definition of UIC is that it is a UI CONTEXT and if the context changes - then the UIC changes.   I see no such designation in TLF or its definition.    The TLF (FRAME) would be the same even if almost all of the contents were different.   I think you argued this above.


> 
>> 
>>> 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]
>> 
>> GV3: Sorry.  But the Access Board and M376 are not referencing the understanding document.   They are referencing the WCAG.   The Understanding WCAG 2.0 is informative but it is the WCAG that was reviewed and passed and is the standard.   We can't use the INTENT to override or expand on the SC.  Only to explain it.     
> 
> The Access Board has referenced WCAG 2.0 in the 2011 ANPRM.  The Access Board hasn't published anything since 2011 with respect to Section 508.  I would rather hear from Bruce or others on the Access Board staff as to whether and what they might reference in the forthcoming NPRM.  Note that "reference" isn't the same thing as "use this normative document in place of our provisions".

GV 4: First I think you know that the Access Board  is in rule-making and cannot comment on what will be in the next round of ANPRM.     RE your last sentence - can you elaborate?  I don't understand what you are trying to say. Here is what I know from past work on standards and regulations and from discussion on general principles (which Bruce CAN comment on)

The Access Board 
CAN normatively reference (and thereby draw into the regulations) things that are standards and stable.
CAN refer to other (non-normative) documents in an advisory note or equivalent 
CANNOT normatively cite any language from other non-normative documents in their standards 
CAN excerpt any language from anywhere and adopt it as their own putting it directly into their standard (with our without edits)
(in which case it is not language from the document but language in the standard)  

> 
>> 
>> GV3: Similarly the Guidelines and Principles are broader and more sweeping than the SC but the SC are the only parts that are normative.  The principles and guidelines are 'aspirational"   and include all of the advisory techniques and more  (none of which are required to conform to WCAG).    Conforming to WCAG is only conforming to the SC as defined by the Conformance Requirements.     So our guidance (if it is guidance on how to conform or apply the WCAG standard to ICT),  has to be based off of ONLY the requirements of the SC and not any other informative information or broader desires.     Those informative aspect were used to frame (Principles and guidelines) the SC  or to explain them (Understanding and techniques) but not to define them or broaden or narrow them. 
> 
> PK4: Until there is a clear statement from the W3C, I think we will simply have to disagree on this. 

GV 4: That is fine.  

> We are writing a non-normative document.  You are saying that we are further restricted to only providing guidance on "ONLY the requirements of the SC and not any other informative information", YET our approved Work Statement says: "Producing a Working Group Note (a form of W3C Technical Report)...that describes...how each of the WCAG 2.0 principles and guidelines would apply non-Web ICT".  If as you say above "the SC are the only parts that are normative" of WCAG, that WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DIRECTED to provide guidance on how to apply non-normative parts of WCAG - namely the principles and guidelines.
> 
GV 4: correct.  We can talk about how those would apply.  But we cannot narrow or expand either the SC or the Guidelines or principles. 

> Given this, I don't see why it is unreasonable to ask the question: might we ALSO be able to provide guidance based in part on INTENT, particularly for those few SCs where the mapping to software is particularly troublesome.

GV 4: the intent informs on - but cannot change the SC.  The Access Board and m376 cannot cite the intent - only the SC with the intent as guidance of intent.  (and for normative uses of WCAG -- only the intent published at the time can be used -- though they can cite a later intent in their later rules. ) 

But this is all separate from the discussion of whether our task force can broaden the reach of the SC by noting text in the Guidelines or INTENT if that language cannot be drawn from the language of the SC.  That is,  if the the SC says x and the INTENT says something that you cannot read directly from the SC -- then the SC not the intent rules. 

A non-normative document can help one to read a normative document correctly (the intent) but it cannot change the meaning of a normative document if the two differ. 



> 
>> GV3: Looking forward to further info on TLFs and how they would get around the problems I mentioned above. 
> 
> I hope I have given that to you!

GV 4: yep thanks.   some requests for additional info above. 


> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 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 Monday, 16 July 2012 13:25:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 July 2012 13:25:05 GMT