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

RE: Report from WCAG Working Group meeting today

From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:36:02 -0400
To: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5735ED0D92A3E6469F161EB41E7C28A81D1BA06101@MAILR001.mail.lan>
As I will only be able to attend today's WCAG2ICT call for a very short period, I would like to record my views on the feedback from the WCAG WG.


1)      A general observation is that  I am extremely pleased (and I guess that we should all be) that a lot of our best thinking is now being proposed to be used directly in WCAG 2.0 intent. This has to be very good news in terms of a clearer and consistent understanding of WCAG 2.0 in the context of increasingly converging worlds of "software", documents and web.

2)      I am completely happy with all of the proposals of the WCAG WG down to and including the proposals on 3.3.1 and 3.3.3 plus 1.4.3.

3)      If I understand the item on how to interpret "content" correctly, the WCAG WG are saying that they accept the following definition of content:
"information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of ICT"

I am very happy with this definition as it was the one that seemed to work very well for my team in the M376 work (for us this was "electronic content" - but that is splitting hairs).

4)      The "title attribute" issues is quite tricky. This is the term that fits best, but I understand WCAG WG's concern. The trouble is that this attribute might be present in many different forms - so finding an alternative word that works in all cases is a real problem. Words such as "property" sprang to mind - but I'm sure it could be argued that this too could have an alternative and conflicting meaning. So - good luck with this one :)

Best regards

Mike

From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto:andisnow@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 20 July 2012 02:38
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Report from WCAG Working Group meeting today


ACCEPTED AS PROPOSED
* 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
* 1.4.2 Audio Control
* 1.4.4 Resize Text - although we have an action to revisit Christophe's comments after we publish the draft
* 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions
* 3.3.3 Error Suggestion
* FRONTMATTER

ACCEPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS
* 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence
WCAG WG thought that the note was better addressed in WCAG 2.0 intent as it is applicable to both web and software. They accepted 1.3.2 with the note removed from our guidance and agreed to add similar content to the end of the intent, slightly modified with additional text in [bold brackets] as

For clarity:

    1. providing a particular linear order is only required where it affects meaning.
    2. there may be more than one order that is "correct" [(according to the WCAG 2.0 definition)]
    3. only one correct order needs to be provided.
* 2.4.3 Focus Order
WCAG WG thought that the note was better addressed in WCAG 2.0 intent as it is applicable to both web and software. They accepted 2.4.3 with the note removed from our guidance and agreed to add similar content to the end of the intent, as follows:

For clarity:

    1. focusable components need to receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability only when navigation sequences affect meaning and operability.
    2 in those cases where it is required, there may be more than one order that will preserve meaning and operability
    3. if there is more than one order that preserves meaning and operability, only one of them needs to be provided

* 2.4.6 Headings and Labels - accepted with the note reworded FROM "Note that in software user interfaces, headings and labels are used to describe [blocks of text and controls] respectively." to "Note that in software user interfaces, labels and headings are used to describe [controls and sections of content] respectively."

* Introduction - accepted with the following two edits:
2nd paragraph: change "This draft document is intended to help make non-Web ICT more accessible to people with disabilities." to "This draft document is intended to help clarify how to use WCAG 2.0 to make non-Web ICT more accessible to people with disabilities."

6th paragraph, change "what WCAG 2.0 Conformance means" -> "what WCAG 2.0 Conformance would mean"
* 3.3.1 Error Identification and 3.3.3 Error Suggestion proposed edits to intent accepted with the word "software" changed to "system"
SC THAT HAVE THE TEXT '(see Introduction for how to interpret "content")'

WCAG WG would like us to either describe what "content" means in the introduction, or remove all of the sentences from the WCAG2ICT TF comments that say " See introduction for the way to interpret content. The definition in 1.3.2 is acceptable to WCAG WG if the task force would like to use it.

* 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum) accepted with the text '(see Introduction for how to interpret "content")' removed
DID NOT ACCEPT
* 2.4.2 Page Titled - we ran out of time on this one but they did recommend that we find a different term for "title attribute" used in the comment on documents to avoid confusion with HTML title attributes.

Andi
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 11:36:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 July 2012 11:36:37 GMT