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

RE: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:35:46 -0400
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'Andi Snow-Weaver' <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5735ED0D92A3E6469F161EB41E7C28A81D1B86AE25@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Unfortunately "active window" or "active viewport" only works for visual interfaces. Interaction context was drafted so that could also apply to a dialogue step in a voice interface for example.

Mandate 376 definition reminder:

-          that part of the user interface of a system in which the users interact with all the functions, containers, and information needed for carrying out some particular task or set of interrelated tasks

NOTE:   An interaction context can include but is not limited to things such as, the complete software window, a dialog box, message box, voice dialogue step, etc.

The definition focus on the current  set of interaction options available to a user. When a web page is displayed, the user can only interact with those things that are presented on the page - so that is consistent with the interaction context.

If I were to change our own definition I might substitute "users may interact" for "the users interact". I think that this is a small improvement.

Best regards

Mike

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: 18 June 2012 17:01
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Andi Snow-Weaver'
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

For me, "Interaction Context" is too difficult to parse...difficult to imagine, visualize or conceptualize...  it's like the old days of WCAG when we were talking about a "web unit" (we had rejected "web page" on the grounds that web apps weren't static) we had many people complaining about "web unit"...  and I mentioned the analogy of "horsepower" and how the word morphed when cars were created, and through some discussions ended up back with web page which included interaction...

I mention this because maybe we don't have to invent another term (we have enough people complaining about our new terms) ...  how about "active window"? (or active viewport)

Cheers
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
  "Enabling the Web"
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]<mailto:[mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]>
Sent: June-18-12 10:48 AM
To: Andi Snow-Weaver
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

Hmmm
might the answer be found by exploring why 'interaction context' doesn't seem to work?

a good place to start might be in finding out what the problems we have are - and then finding a way to address them.

Can someone or someones summarize the problems with interaction context?

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net







On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:


We're quickly coming to the point in our work where we will not be able to reach consensus on the guidance for the success criteria until we come to consensus on interpretation of "web page" and "set of web pages" in the software context.

The proposal to use "interaction context" for "web page" has not yet been accepted.

We need another proposal. Ideas anyone?

Andi
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 16:36:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 June 2012 16:36:47 GMT