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

Re: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of “objects of assessment”

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:34:10 -0700
Message-ID: <506DD6A2.30100@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Gregg,

This is a really excellent document.  I need to re-read it a few more 
times to fully digest it.

I would really like to see much of this text adapted to be part of our 
final document deliverable, as it gives so much more context and 
understanding to readers of what we are are doing and why - far beyond 
the too little we gave in the first public draft of "applies directly as 
written... replacing "web page" with..." + occasional notes.


I remain concerned with how things would sort out in practice for our 4 
unresolved SCs, particularly for software.  I want to review some of our 
examples 
<https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples> 
with this approach, and see how that feels (e.g. Bypass Blocks - what is 
"repeated content" in software that would be bypassed?  What constitutes 
a software title that describes the topic or purpose?  Is "Skype" or 
"Pidgin"  "Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro" or "NetBeans IDE 7.0" a title for 
software that sufficiently "describes the topic or purpose"? (of four 
random apps on my computer at the moment - which respectively do IM and 
audio and video conferencing, IM via a bunch of different protocols than 
Skype, read & author PDF documents, and a developer tool for creating 
any of a huge variety of types of programs)? ).


I also remain concerned with how the white paper treats Conformance.  
Our work statement directs us to describe "the extent to which WCAG 
Conformance <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance> /*is meaningful 
*/to non-Web ICT" (emphasis added). Yes/No evaluation software support 
for the individual SCs is extremely difficult.  One cannot test all of 
the UI permutations possible in many software situations.  Yes, this 
situation isn't unique to non-web software; it also arises in web apps.  
AND we are seeing EvalTF struggling with that very question, and heading 
now in the direction of a report of what was found rather than a simple 
Yes/No evaluation.

I continue to believe it is not only appropriate - but also within our 
remit as stated in our Work Statement - to go beyond finding word 
substitutions for determining "what WCAG 2.0 Conformance means in the 
context of non-Web ICT".


I will try to provide more detailed feedback on the various sections of 
your otherwise excellent white paper in the survey for tomorrow.


Peter



On 10/3/2012 8:14 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> REPOSTING THIS WITH A LINK RATHER THAN AN ATTACHMENT (since the 
> attachment was stripped off for some)
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I finished my writeup evaluating all of the SC,  looking for 
> consistency,  and proposing an approach to resolving the final 4 plus 
> the conformance requirements based on the concept of "object of 
> assessment".
>
> It is attached.
>
> the abstract is below
>
> nite.
>
> G
>
> Use this link to download the document :http://goo.gl/Shf8d
>
>
> This whitepaper is provided to help in the discussion of how to apply 
> WCAG 2.0 to non-web content and software in a manner equivalent the 
> way WCAG 2.0 was designed to be applied to web content.  It starts 
> with a discussion of a concept of “objects of assessment” and then 
> shows how this can lead to a better understanding both of WCAG 2.0, 
> and how to apply it to non-web ICT.   It shows that such an approach 
> leads to both an agreement with the 34 provisions the WCAG2ICT task 
> force has already reached consensus on.  But it shows how the WCAG2ICT 
> decisions can be explained by a couple simple rules rather than as 34 
> individual decisions.
>
> It also leads to a resolution for the final 4 provisions as well as 
> the WCAG Conformance requirements. This resolution comes from a better 
> understanding of what we are assessing on 3 of the 4 and how they are 
> different from the others (leading to our problem in resolving them). 
> A resolution to the 4^th is also proposed.  The paper concludes with 
> some observations and a full summary (listing each provision) and 
> showing what the solutions would look like in place.
>
> (As a bonus the summary also shows what the task force's suggested 
> global replacement of  electronic documents with “non-embedded 
> content” would look like – thus closing one of our action items).
>
> *(see page 12 for a 1 page summary of the recommendations, then read 
> paper for rationale)*
>
>
>
> /Gregg/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   --- http://GPII.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 18:35:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:47 UTC