- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:06:52 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <508A0C5C.3050309@oracle.com>
Gregg, gang,
First, thank you Gregg and also Andi for representing the TF well in the
WG meeting, and moving so much of our work forward with withm.
Regarding a few of these topics as Gregg has reported them:
* *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "name" && *
*TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "role"
*I am happy to take a TF action to provide additional examples of
"AccessibleName" & "AccessibleRole" in several other accessibility
APIs [Andi or Mike - if you would like to assign that to me...]
* *TOPIC: Changes to SC 3.2.3 Sufficient Techniques
*In addition to the resolutions of WCAG WG, we also spent just a few
minutes discussing the text of the first example of
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-consistent-locations.html
- to wit: "Examples of Success Criterion 3.2.3...*A consistently
located control *A search field is the last item on every Web page
in a site. users can quickly locate the search function"
The discussion was around whether this example was intended to be
taken literally that "any consistently located control [across a set
of web pages]" is an example of meeting SC 3.2.3, or if this should
rather be read "any consistently located control /whose function is
related to navigation"/ is the example. While we ran out of time to
fully explore that question, the general sense of the WG and
co-chair Loretta is that this is an example /because/ the search
function is a function related to navigation.
The result of this discussion, to me, helps somewhat in clarifying
what we need to do with SC 3.2.3 if we are to find a way to apply it
to non-web ICT. We need to:
(a) determine some test for content in software, to figure out
when that content is a "navigation mechanism" (or not), and write
text restricted to that scenario. OR
(b) we need to convince ourselves and WCAG WG that in the software
context it would be appropriate to include more than just "software
navigation mechanisms" (whatever they are), OR
(c) we need to find a way observe that this situation doesn't
really make sense in software, and then either:
(c1) state that this SC isn't appropriate for software in some
fashion, OR
(c2) state that for software such navigation mechanism don't
occur and therefore this SC is always/automatically met
Regards,
Peter
On 10/25/2012 8:54 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> I have divided this into two groups
>
> 1. the first group are things that the WCAG WG accepted without change.
> * There is no action needed on these
>
> 2. the second group are things that WG made slight change to -- and
> WCAG2ICT can address quickly
>
> 3. the third group is one item that the group will have to make
> significant change on. A proposal follows in another email
>
>
>
> *GROUP 1: all had RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed or NO WCAG2ICT
> ACTION REQUIRED*
>
> * WCAG2ICT Success Criterion 2.4.2 (Page Titled)
> * WCAG2ICT Success Criterion 2.4.2 (Page Titled)
> * WCAG2ICT note for "contrast ratio"
> * WCAG2ICT note for "label"
> * WCAG2ICT note for "relative luminance"
> * WCAG2ICT note for "supplemental content"
>
> *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "ambiguous to users in general"
> *
> RESOLUTION: Accepted with provision that "non-embedded content" be
> repaired as discussed above. [actually now "discussed below" since
> this is in group #3 in this list]
> [We can count this essentially as accepted because the change
> requested here would apply to ALL places we use "non-embedded content" ]
>
> *TOPIC: Changes to SC 3.2.3 Sufficient Techniques
> *RESOLUTION: PDFs already moved in latest editors draft to advisory.
> G61 is sufficient but does go further than required as many
> techniques do.
> NOTE: Since G61is the only sufficient technique -- the Working Group
> would entertain a more narrow one if someone write one.
> *{no action required here for our WCAG2ICT document} *
>
>
> ----------------
> *GROUP 2**: all were Accepted with small edit - or permission for
> WCAG2ICT to make edit or not. *
> *{Approval of WCAG2ICT REQUIRED}*
>
>
> *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT Success Criterion 4.1.1 (Parsing)*
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed - with format abbreviations (e.g. ODF,
> OOXML etc.) spelled out.
>
>
> *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "keyboard interface"
> *RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed and Task force may add the following
> to sentence to notes if they decide:
>
> * "Keyboard interfaces are programmatic services provided by many
> platforms that allow operation in a device independent manner."
>
>
>
> *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "name"
> *RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed changing
> "however it is called in different APIs"
> to
> "whatever that function is called in different platform APIs"
> and suggesting that examples be added of the Accessible Name
> corollaries in each of the known AAPIs at this time along with the AAPI.
>
>
> *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "role"*
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed changing
> "however it is called in different APIs"
> to
> "whatever that function is called in different platform APIs"
> and suggesting that examples be added of the Accessible Role
> corollaries in each of the known AAPIs at this time along with the AAPI.
>
>
>
> *Group 3: Somewhat Major action required -- on 10 of our success
> criteria - and our term "Non-embedded content" in general *
>
> *TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT definition of Non-embedded content
> [NOT ACCEPTED]*
> RESOLUTION: See if WCAG2ICT TF can use something besides Non-embedded
> and NWNE that is more generic like non-web content and software - with
> specific notes on specific success criterion.
>
>
>
>
>
> ================================
>
>
>
> *Here is chronological list of decisions of WCAG WG*
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT Success Criterion 2.4.2 (Page Titled)
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT Success Criterion 2.4.2 (Page Titled)
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT Success Criterion 4.1.1 (Parsing)
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed - with format abbreviations (e.g. ODF,
> OOXML etc.) spelled out.
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT definition of Non-embedded content
> [NOT ACCEPTED]
> RESOLUTION: See if WCAG2ICT tf can use something besides Non-embedded
> and NWNE that is more generic like non-web content and software - with
> specific notes on specific success criterion.
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "ambiguous to users in general"
> RESOLUTION: Accepted with provision that "non-embedded content" be
> repaired as discussed above.
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "contrast ratio"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "keyboard interface"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed and Task force may add the following to
> sentence to notes if they decide: "Keyboard interfaces are
> programmatic services provided by many platforms that allow operation
> in a device independent manner."
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "label"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "name"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed changing "however it is called in
> different APIs" to "whatever that function is called in different
> platform APIs" and suggesting that examples be added of the Accessible
> Name corollaries in each of the known AAPIs at this time along with
> the AAPI.
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "relative luminance"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "role"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed changing "however it is called in
> different APIs" to "whatever that function is called in different
> platform APIs" and suggesting that examples be added of the Accessible
> Role corollaries in each of the known AAPIs at this time along with
> the AAPI.
>
> TOPIC: Approval of WCAG2ICT note for "supplemental content"
> RESOLUTION: Accept as proposed
>
> TOPIC: Changes to SC 3.2.3 Sufficient Techniques
> RESOLUTION: PDFs already moved in latest editors draft to advisory.
> G61 is sufficient but does go further than required as many
> techniques do.
>
> NOTE: Since G61is the only sufficient technique -- the Working Group
> would entertain a more narrow one if someone write one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Friday, 26 October 2012 04:07:49 UTC