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

Re: Proposal for the last three items

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:05:54 -0700
Message-ID: <5087F5C2.2060609@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Gregg,

I'm sorry, but this proposal doesn't (yet) work for me.

The proposal does not:

  * clearly define what constitutes "linking" between software to create
    a set
  * define for 3.2.3 what a navigation mechanism is for software
  * incorporate any of the necessary thinking for 2.4.5 (which we have
    been developing) for what "locating a [software]" means
  * incorporate any of the necessary thinking for 2.4.1 (which we have
    been developing) for what "bypassing a block" of content means in
    software -> e.g. focus vs...

Furthermore, in the meeting I believe several of us asked for a positive 
example of a set in software.  As far as I'm concerned, this can be a 
constructed example - it doesn't have to be one in real life.  But I am 
not comfortable saying that these are "...never ordinarily be included 
in a set of software requirements..." without making clear the situation 
in which it/they would be included.  If the are never included - period 
- then we should state that.  If there is some rare situation in which 
one/all should be included, we should clearly describe that situation.

Finally, I am not prepared to say "ALso we did not find that WCAG 
applied this within a web page or single unit web app (at a single URI) 
so we didn’t feel we could apply it within software".  I am not 
convinced it is fundamentally wrong to look at some of these where the 
"set" is "software", and that is a discussion I maintain we should have 
with WCAG.  Last Friday I put together a page with a first draft trying 
to gather together the issues we saw with these three remaining SCs and 
three approaches we were mulling over - but hasn't yet reached consensus 
on any - as the basis for such a discussion (see 
https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs). 
I had expected to work on this with you, but instead you are focusing on 
a specific proposal (essentially one of the three approaches), and I'm 
not seeing any specific critiques otherwise of that text.


Regards,

Peter


On 10/24/2012 1:10 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> *
> *
> *
> *
> Here area the ones left
> ============================================================
>
>     * 2.4.1: Bypass Blocks (Level A)*
>
>         A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are
>         repeated on multiple Web pages.
>
>             [agreement for non-embedded content]
>
>
>     *2.4.5: Multiple Ways (Level AA)*
>
>         More than one way is available to locate a Web page within
>         a set of Web pages except where the Web Page is the result of,
>         or a step in, a process.
>
>
>     *3.2.3: Consistent Navigation (Level AA)*
>
>         Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web
>         pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative
>         order each time they are repeated, unless a change
>         is initiated by the user.
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> SUGGEST THAT WE DO THE FOLLOWING
>
> In *_all three cases_* we
>
> 1) Say "*applies as written etc. * replacing *web page(s)*  with *NWNE 
> Content and Software  "*
> *
> *
> *2)  add the following two notes to each*
>
> *NOTE 1: *Because content this is not on a web is not as easily 
> defined as a set by its location, the WCAG2ICT TF found that a clearer 
> definition of what constituted a set was needed for Non-web content 
> and software.  The following definition of SET was adopted because it 
> provided a clear indication (by virtual of the bi-directional 
> linkages) that they items were indeed meant to work together as a set 
> and not just be a collection.
>
> NOTE 2: For software the WCAG2ICT TF found that this provision can be 
> applied to software but such sets of software are rare, and most would 
> meet this success criterion automatically by their natural design.   
> So this provision would never ordinarily be included in a set of 
> software requirements because of it rarity and the fact that it is not 
> much of a problem for software so the provision would not be of much 
> value.
> ALso we did not find that WCAG applied this within a web page or 
> single unit web app (at a single URI) so we didn’t feel we could apply 
> it within software.  But we do recognize the utility of applying this 
> general concept in different ways to parts of software.   WCAG would 
> not require it, but it would be good practice consider the general 
> concept when designing software.
>
> *3) *refer to our definition a definition of Set as follows
> *SET  (of NWNE Content or Software)*
>
>         *group of items that are linked bidirectionally to each other
>         via h,yperlinks or a menu of links that move you between the
>         items in the group.*
>
>
>
> *Comments welcome*
> (some tweaking may be needed between SC)
>
>
> *========================*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *Background - for reference*
>
>   * *23* success criteria *"This [success criterion] applies
>     directly as written, and as described in INTENT
>     from Understanding WCAG 2.0' *
>
>   * *8* success criteria * "*This [* success criterion] applies
>     directly as written, and as described in INTENT
>     from Understanding WCAG 2.0 *
>     replacing "*Web page(s)*", "*Each Web page*", "*Content*" or "*Web
>     content*" with "*Non-embeded Content and Software"
>
>     *
>   * *4* success criterion * "*This [*success criterion] applies
>     directly as written, and as described in INTENT
>     from Understanding WCAG 2.0 *
>     had individual substitutions
>       o (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence)
>           + replacing "*Content*", with "*Non-**Web content*"
>       o (1.4.2 Audio Control)
>           + replacing “*a Web page”* with “ *in non-embedded
>             content or software*” and *“any content*” with “*any part
>             of non-embedded content or software*
>       o (3.2.4 Consistent Identification)
>           + replacing “*a set of Web pages*” with "*non-embedded
>             content or software”*
>       o (4.1.1 Parsing)
>           + replacing* “In content implemented using markup languages”
>             *with*  “For software and non-embedded content that use
>             markup languages, in such a way that the markup is
>             separately exposed and available to assistive technology
>             (AT) or to a user-selectable user agent".*
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
> /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 - 
> http://Raisingthefloor.org
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - 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 Wednesday, 24 October 2012 14:06:49 UTC

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