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

Re: We area close !

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:06:31 -0700
Message-ID: <50588DF7.5060802@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Gregg,

PK: I think the action now falls to you, to come up with real-life 
examples of where this applies.  If we can't come up with examples, then 
we shouldn't say how an SC applies - to only theoretical situations.


Peter

On 9/18/2012 7:02 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hi Allen,
>
> The comment made wasn’t that there were no examples.  Just that there 
> weren't enough- so we would say it didn’t apply. To me "doesn’t apply" 
> is different than "doesn’t happen a lot".
>
> I would agree that if it isn't really important and it doesn’t happen 
> a lot I wouldn’t add it to a set in the first place -- but we are not 
> charged with throwing away WCAG provisions that we don't think are 
> important enough.  Just with saying how they would apply.
>
> No?
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:06 AM, "Hoffman, Allen" 
> <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV <mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>> wrote:
>
>> Gregg writes:
>> *GV:  It is entirely likely that some will be of less importance than 
>> others for docs and software.  Or occur more often others.       In 
>> not sure that I follow how one gets from 'it doesn’t apply in many 
>> places" to "it doesn’t apply".    If we were deciding whether to 
>> include things in a standard or not -- then importance and prevalence 
>> are both things we would look at when deciding what to devote time 
>> and standard space.  But wearentdoing that.  We are just saying how 
>> it would apply. So the fact that it may not apply in as many places 
>> as other provisions doesn’t seem as relevant to us. *
>> **
>> *AH:If we can’t identify a scenario that makes any sense where a SC 
>> applies we need to document this as part of our work or we are not 
>> being transparent and upfront with readers.It may be that such 
>> examples become available down the road, but such should be clearly 
>> stated in updates we make, when such is the case.We can only do what 
>> we all understand at this time, and I can live with that as an honest 
>> effort.*
>> **
>> *
>>
>> *
>> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com <http://oracle.com>]
>> *Sent:*Monday, September 17, 2012 6:46 PM
>> *To:*Gregg Vanderheiden
>> *Cc:*public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>Force
>> *Subject:*Re: We area close !
>> Gregg,
>>
>> PK: No screen shots came through.  But two things came to me while 
>> reading your reply I want to call out:
>>
>>  1. For Page Titled, since in your characterization this is at the
>>     software (application) level, and we can have non-titled windows
>>     appearing on top of (and potentially obscuring) the titles of
>>     windows which do contain the page title, what then?  Page Title
>>     won't help in that situation.  Is it a failure? Or just a case
>>     which we couldn't fully cover because of limitations of mapping
>>     WCAG to non-web ICT?  OR...?
>>  2. You've made the point multiple times that this is about
>>     inter-application issues, not intra-application issues.  But I'm
>>     reading 2.4.2 Bypass Blocks as intra-application: if the blocks
>>     are repeated within a single application (e.g within a single web
>>     page).  Is that also how you intend it, or not?
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 9/17/2012 3:08 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>
>>     On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com
>>     <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Gregg,
>>
>>     PK: I think you mis-read my comments, or I was otherwise unclear.
>>
>>     I think there is a show-stopper for your proposal for 2.4.2 Page
>>     Titled.  I see that you had in-line comments after your sign-off,
>>     so I'll also address those in-line.
>>
>>     Yes, for 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks, I think we have a reasonable way to
>>     apply this that holds up to the three examples I cited, across
>>     the desktop GUI and mobile world.  I think it needs further
>>     scrutiny before we declare ourselves done, but I am cautiously
>>     optimistic about this one.
>>
>>     For the other two - 2.4.5 Multiple Ways & 3.2.3 Consistent
>>     Navigation, I didn't see how they applied to the examples I was
>>     looking at.
>>     *GV: correct.  They don't apply to the examples you were looking
>>     at.  Because those were not things they would apply to.  
>>     Multiple ways is for getting to software - not around in it and
>>     consistent navigation only applies to navigation elements. *
>>
>>
>>     I didn't do an exhaustive look this past Sunday evening. Doing no
>>     harm to a handful of examples (but not applying) isn't the same
>>     as saying "it works, let's use it".  And frankly, if we cannot
>>     find good examples where they DO apply, then I am of the opinion
>>     that they likely SHOULDN'T apply.  Which is why I said we need to
>>     find positive examples of them applying first.
>>     *GV:  It is entirely likely that some will be of less importance
>>     than others for docs and software.  Or occur more often others.
>>     In not sure that I follow how one gets from 'it doesn’t apply in
>>     many places" to "it doesn’t apply".    If we were deciding
>>     whether to include things in a standard or not -- then importance
>>     and prevalence are both things we would look at when deciding
>>     what to devote time and standard space.  But we arent doing that.
>>      We are just saying how it would apply.   So the fact that it may
>>     not apply in as many places as other provisions doesn’t seem as
>>     relevant to us. *
>>     *
>>
>>     *
>>
>>
>>     Now, on to in-line replies..
>>
>>     On 9/16/2012 11:23 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>
>>         *GV:  Thanks Peter*
>>         *Looks like things are working wherever they are applied to
>>         the thing the SC with the **words* I *proposed are present.*
>>         *and - where they are not present -- then of course the
>>         success criterion is automatically satisfied like all the
>>         other success criterion *
>>         *The only problems or confusion seemed to be when you tried
>>         to apply the SC against something "inside" a doc or software
>>         program - which would be like applying WCAG inside a web page
>>         or web app (that resided at one URL).    And that of course
>>         is going beyond what WCAG does.   And is what had us confused
>>         for so long.*
>>         *So no show stoppers here for the proposals. *
>>         *Gregg*
>>         On Sep 16, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Peter Korn
>>         <peter.korn@oracle.com <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         Hi Gregg,
>>
>>         I really think it would be useful to take theExamples for UI
>>         Context discussion
>>         <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples>and
>>         apply your suggested definitions to them.
>>
>>         *2.4.1. Bypass Blocks:*
>>
>>           * Looking atHow many Example #1: two document windows
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/how-many-two-document-windows>since
>>             the menu bar & toolbar can be repeated in the software,
>>             some bypass mechanism would be needed... *This seems like
>>             a reasonable application.*
>>           * Looking atChanged? Example #3: Tabbed panes
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-3-tabbed-panes>**there
>>             is nothing formally repeated, so this wouldn't apply.
>>             *That too seems like a reasonable application.*
>>           * Looking atChanged? Example #24 calender appointments
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-24-calender-appointments>since
>>             the calendar title & days repeat while content below
>>             changes, arguably again some bypass mechanism would be
>>             needed. *This seems like a reasonable application.*
>>
>>         *GV: Good.    One down.*
>>
>>
>>     PK: yes, perhaps.  I want to see more examination, more looking
>>     at more of our examples, before I mark this one as "down".
>>
>>
>>     *
>>
>>     *
>>
>>     *2.4.2 Page Titled:*
>>
>>       * Looking atHow many Example #1: two document windows
>>         <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/how-many-two-document-windows>there
>>         is no obvious visible page title; "Untitled Document 1" is no
>>         more or less the obvious "software title" than "Untitled
>>         Document 2" is (and in fact, clearly neither one  is
>>         correct). *This seems like a poor fit to this situation. *
>>
>>     *GV: I am confused -- and I think maybe you are confounding my
>>     proposal for this SC with another one. (see below).  The document
>>     hasn’t been saved -- or hasn’t been saved with a meaningful
>>     title.  So clearly it fails -- as it should.   If you pick
>>     anything that fails an SC and use it as an example it will of
>>     course fail. *
>>     *GV:  Remember my proposal was to replace  "web pages" with
>>     "documents" and "software".   Since the windows are not software
>>     (but internal bits of a program) then you must be evaluating this
>>     as to how it applies to documents.   This isn't a document yet
>>     (or someone is distributing documents titled 'untitled' -- maybe
>>     it is an art piece) or it is something the user is creating and
>>     they will know what it is (and they should save soon! -- with a
>>     title !*
>>
>>     PK: Nope, I 'm not applying this to documents.  I'm saying we
>>     have one software app whose only visible UI is these two documents.
>>     *GV:  right.  and what I was proposing was that we apply this at
>>     the software level (software as a single object) -- not to parts
>>     of the software.   So looking at windows isn't relevant. *
>>
>>         And I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what the
>>         "page titled" should be for this software.
>>
>>     *GV:  I would be -- is the software titled.    Not pieces inside
>>     it. *
>>
>>
>>       Note my "Note" below, that starts with "Note: Since
>>     Understanding for 2.4.2 begins with...". There is no obvious,
>>     user-visible text to be the "page title" for this
>>     two-windows-showing software app that addresses the user needs
>>     described in Intent.  Therefore I question whether this applies
>>     (as you have proposed writing it for software).
>>     *GV:  it does -- and if you look at real world apps -- I see the
>>     apps name on the menubar *
>>
>>
>>     I strongly suggest we start doing what we discussed last Friday:
>>     writing a specific "WCAG2ICT Notes" for all language we are
>>     proposing for the remaining unconsensed SCs (and as a separate
>>     background task, write them for the consensed ones), describing
>>     how the user needs described in Understanding are addressed in
>>     the non-web context.  I commit to doing that for any text
>>     proposals I make.
>>     *GV:  I agree. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          *
>>           * Looking atChanged? Example #3: Tabbed panes
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-3-tabbed-panes>**we
>>             don't know for sure what the application name is.  If it
>>             is "Media Center" then this would be helpful; if not...
>>             then not. *This seems like may not be a good fit to this
>>             situation. *
>>
>>     *GV: These aren't documents or software programs.  So Im not sure
>>     why you mention them when you want to talk about my proposal.
>>      You are looking at subparts of a software program and trying to
>>     evaluate if you can identify  the program from the piece.  That
>>     isn't part of what I was proposing.*
>>
>>     PK: No - I'm taking the example and saying "if this is the only
>>     visible part of the software application at this moment in time,
>>     then how would the proposed text for 2.4.2 apply in practice?". 
>>     And then I'm recording my answer above: "This seems like it may
>>     not be a good fit to this situation".  Again, take this in
>>     context with my Note below, looking at Intent for this SC.
>>     *GV:  it would be helpful if you used screen shots of real
>>     programs.  These look like hypothetical drawings that don't have
>>     all the detail on them.    Are these screen shots from a real OS?
>>      Ah -  see that you picked up on this below.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     *GV: I DO think it would be useful for a person to know what
>>     program each bit of UI on the screen belonged too -- and that
>>     they all had a program name on them.   But that is not what the
>>     success criterion requires and not what I proposed. *
>>     *What I proposed was that it was possible to identify the
>>     software program.  On a mac - when I am in a program, its name
>>     appears at the top of the screen.*
>>     *On a PC - every program I opened (and I opened a dozen or so)
>>     had its name on the top title bar of the main window in one form
>>     or another.   So it doesn’t look like it would be hard to do.*
>>
>>     PK: Ahhh.... So what you are really saying is that (some of) my
>>     examples are wrong, and that the application name WOULD NORMALLY
>>     BE APPEARING in the title bars of these windows, and should be to
>>     satisfy your proposed text of the SC.
>>     *GV:  yes. bingo*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>           * Looking atChanged? Example #24 calender appointments
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-24-calender-appointments>it
>>             is pretty obvious to folks raised with a cultural
>>             familiarity with the Julian calendar that this is a
>>             calendar / appointment application.  It is not at all
>>             clear what the software title is; it isn't "October". 
>>             And consuming a significant portion of a small screen to
>>             display the software application name would come at
>>             significant cost, and somewhat questionable benefit.
>>             *This seems like may not be a good fit to this situation. *
>>
>>     *GV: What program and operating system did you get this screen
>>     capture from?   It looks like only part of a program -not the
>>     whole program. *
>>
>>     PK: This is an abstraction derived from the iOS calendar
>>     application when viewed on an iPhone.  I do see additional text
>>     (with the word "calendars" on it) when in portrait mode, so that
>>     too isn't a real life example of a mobile UI that is missing
>>     anything that would help orient a user with cognitive impairment
>>     as to what is going on.  Rotate that screen 90 degrees to
>>     landscape mode, and you will loose the word "calendar". Also go
>>     to just about any mobile phone's dialing application, and you
>>     won't see the word "phone" on it - just the NumPad for entering
>>     numbers (plus perhaps the word "Call" appearing on one of the
>>     buttons no where near where one would look for a "title" to the
>>     software).
>>     *GV:  this is to orient you to the program.  not within it.   in
>>     a single-screen (non-windowing) app like you are talking about --
>>     the user knows what app they are looking at . *
>>
>>
>>     Do you propose that the landscape view of the iOS calendar on an
>>     iPhone, and the dialing apps of most mobile phones, should fail
>>     this SC?  The visual layout at least of the latter is pretty
>>     clearly different and so I would question the need for a title in
>>     that case for folks with cognitive impairments (something perhaps
>>     to discussion with Clayton Lewis and other cognitive impairment
>>     experts).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         Note: Since Understanding for 2.4.2 begins with "The intent
>>         of this Success Criterion is to help users find content and
>>         orient themselves within it", and specific benefits include
>>         "People with visual disabilities will benefit from being able
>>         to differentiate content when multiple Web pages are open"
>>         and "People with cognitive disabilities, limited short-term
>>         memory and reading disabilities also benefit from the ability
>>         to identify content by its title".
>>
>>     *GV:  Yes.  So substituting Software for "web page" you get
>>     "differentiate content when they have multiple programs open".
>>      The SC would apply to figuring out which program you are using
>>     -- in the same way WCAG would apply to knowing which page you
>>     were on.*
>>
>>     PK: A key difference is that in WCAG, the "which page you are on"
>>     is about the pages WITHIN a website,
>>     *GV2: WCAG isn't about web sites.  It is about web pages.    So
>>     the comparison is a web page to an app. And within an application
>>     would map to within a page. *
>>     **
>>
>>         not over the entire Internet.  Most of the programs you run
>>         likely aren't from Oracle; so is it Oracle's responsibility
>>         to help you distinguish our programs from whatever else you
>>         might decide to run?
>>
>>     *GV2:  no.  and not suggesting that you do. *
>>     *
>>
>>     *
>>       It certainly isn't our responsibility for things outside our
>>     website with regards WCAG.
>>     *GV2:  right.*
>>
>>
>>     In any case, as I mentioned above and tying back to our Friday
>>     conversation, I think this SC needs to have "proposed WCAG2ICT
>>     Notes" describing how Intent from WCAG is being carried forward
>>     into the non-web software world, for us to better discuss it.
>>     *GV2:   agree *
>>
>>
>>
>>     *GV: It would be good to have orientation at levels inside a
>>     program and inside a web page -- but as you know-- when we try
>>     that we run into all sorts of problems.   Then people start
>>     saying that it doesn’t apply. *
>>     *My proposal it so apply it as the level that is parallel (web
>>     page = web app = software app)  and then it works.    Drilling
>>     down and finding it doesn’t work, and then saying it doesn’t
>>     apply doesn’t seem to be the way to go or to make sense. *
>>     *So - two down.*
>>
>>     PK: Sorry, this one isn't settled yet.  Not even close.
>>     *GV2:  OK -- look back at it and think APP level rather than
>>     "inside the app"  and I think you will see how it falls out.   it
>>     would be good to also have "inside the app" guidelines but that
>>     can come as advisory techniques -- and then we don't need to
>>     worry about each technique or guideline applying everywhere. *
>>
>>
>>
>>     **
>>
>>         *2.4.5 Multiple Ways:*
>>
>>           * Looking atHow many Example #1: two document windows
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/how-many-two-document-windows>it
>>             wouldn't apply, as there isn't a "set of software
>>             products" visible in the example.**
>>
>>     *GV: Huh?  I lost you.   It doesn’t apply to OK buttons in a
>>     dialog box either.  or any other pieces of a program. But that
>>     isn't what is proposed.   I don't follow you here.   My proposal
>>     was that it applied to software programs in a set of software
>>     programs.   You don't have a set of software programs so it
>>     automatically meets -- just like all the SC when applied to
>>     something that are not addressed in the SC. *
>>
>>          *
>>           * Looking atChanged? Example #3: Tabbed panes
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-3-tabbed-panes>**again
>>             it wouldn't apply, as there isn't a "set of software
>>             products" visible in the example.
>>
>>     *GV: Ditto.   why are you citing examples that don't have
>>     anything to do with the SC as proposed? *
>>
>>          *
>>           * Looking atChanged? Example #24 calender appointments
>>             <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-24-calender-appointments>again
>>             it wouldn't apply, as there isn't a "set of software
>>             products" visible in the example.
>>
>>     *GV:   Ditto.*
>>
>>     PK: I'm looking at a handful of examples - only specifically
>>     chosen at the outset to help illustrate the first of your four
>>     SCs in this thread, and then carried forward to the other three
>>     late on a Sunday night.
>>     *GV2: I see that -- but don't understand why since they don't
>>     relate ? *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>          *
>>
>>             Note that Understanding is tied to locating content &
>>             information, not locating applications and functions; not
>>             clear how much application 2.4.5 has to software UIs.  Or
>>             perhaps none of these (or any of our) examples are useful
>>             to illustrate where 2.4.5 would be helpful.  Perhaps we
>>             need other examples for software, showing where and how
>>             it would work.  AND more especially, describing HOW the
>>             helpfulness in WCAG 2.0 Understanding translates into
>>             similar helpfulness in the software world!
>>
>>     *GV:  Again - if you look at WCAG you will see that it only
>>     applies to pages.  So if a web app is a page-- it only applies to
>>     finding the Web App -- not to finding any information in the Web
>>     app.  Same for documents. *
>>     *    Yes - it would be  good to have multiple ways to find
>>     content WITHIN a web page or WITHIN a web app -- but WCAG doesn’t
>>     require it.  Similarly, it would be good to find have multiple
>>     ways to find content WITHIN a single doc or WITHIN a single
>>     application.  But that would go beyond what is parallel with WCAG. *
>>     *    My proposal is to apply it to documents and software to the
>>     same level as it is applied in  WCAG for at least the most common
>>     forms of web content (docs that are on a page and web apps at one
>>     URL). *
>>     **
>>     ***And it does work for that. *
>>     *So three down - though this won't come up terribly often.    IT
>>     does give us a good place to hand all the advisory techniques
>>     that WOULD drill down into docs and apps.*
>>
>>     PK: Until we have positive, real-world examples where it would
>>     apply that we can discuss and reach consensus on, this one isn't
>>     "down" either.
>>     *GV2:  Fair enough.   After all - I'm asking for you to use real
>>     world examples.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     *3.2.3: Consistent Navigation:*
>>
>>       * Looking atHow many Example #1: two document windows
>>         <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/how-many-two-document-windows>since
>>         the windows are simply repeated except with different non-GUI
>>         content, if any of the UI components are termed "navigation"
>>         this would be automatically met.  If none are termed
>>         "navigation", then it doesn't apply. *This seems like it
>>         could be OK; certainly no harm is done.*
>>
>>     *GV:  OK*
>>
>>       * Looking atChanged? Example #3: Tabbed panes
>>         <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-3-tabbed-panes>**it
>>         looks like it wouldn't apply, as there aren't any "repeated
>>         navigation mechanisms" visible in the example.
>>
>>     *GV:  You misunderstand the way conformance works in WCAG.   Look
>>     at CR1 and at the definition of "satisfies the success criterion"*
>>     *satisfies a success criterion*
>>     the success criterion does not evaluate to 'false' when applied
>>     to the page
>>     *GV: so for example, if a page has no images on it then the
>>     requirement that all images have alt text will not evaluate to
>>     "false" and the success criterion is satisfied. *
>>     *GV: now take your example.  Since there are no repeated
>>     navigation mechanisms*
>>     /Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple //Web
>>     pages/
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#webpagedef>/ within
>>     a //set of Web pages/
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#set-of-web-pagesdef>/ occur
>>     in the //same relative order/
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#samerelorderdef>/ each
>>     time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user./**
>>     *For these pages this is not false -- so the success criterion is
>>     satisfied and the pages conform.*
>>
>>         ·Looking atChanged? Example #24 calender appointments
>>         <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples/changed-example-24-calender-appointments>again
>>         it looks like it wouldn't apply, as there aren't any
>>         "repeated navigation mechanisms" visible in the example.
>>
>>     *GV: Ditto.  there aren't any movies or  a dozen other things
>>     covered by success criterion either.   So the success criterion
>>     are all satisfied since none are violated. *
>>     *GV:  Think of it this way.  Are you conforming to the law that
>>     you not run stop signs if there are no stop signs? *
>>
>>     PK: Again, unless we can come up with actual real-life examples
>>     where this language would apply, and agree on that application,
>>     then we haven't done our job.
>>     *GV2:  ive cited real world examples dozens of times.   But an
>>     easy one is open office. *
>>     *Screen shots at the bottom of the page. *
>>
>>
>>
>>                 Note that this seems like it is a rare situation to
>>                 actually occur in most software, other than
>>                 "content-driven" software like books or other sets of
>>                 information with things like next/prev links on them
>>                 (e.g. Help applications and the like, which are
>>                 essentially similar to HTML/web content).
>>
>>         *GV:  not sure what you are referring to. Consistent
>>         navigation -- or repeated navigation -- in apps and doc is
>>         very common   But also very easy to meet.*
>>
>>         PK: Please give me some real-life examples to discuss and
>>         review.  That was my core point in my first response to your
>>         e-mail: we need to run your text by real-life examples and
>>         evaluate them there.
>>
>>     *GV2:   see below*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         >From this quick analysis, I think we may have something not
>>         too unreasonable for 2.4.2 Bypass Blocks.
>>
>>     *GV: Not sure why it is just "not too unreasonable"*
>>
>>     PK: See my more positive characterization above.
>>     *GV2:  OK*
>>     *
>>
>>     *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     We might have something for 2.4.5 Multiple Ways  and for 3.2.3
>>     Consistent Navigation - but I think we need to come up with a set
>>     of positive examples where this really occurs & would apply;
>>     *GV: *
>>
>>     PK: Did you mean to write something here?
>>     *GV2:  getting old.   See below. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         it isn't clear from the examples we've generated on
>>         theExamples for UI Context discussion
>>         <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/user-interface-context/ui-context-examples>that
>>         they are particularly useful.
>>
>>     *GV:  those examples were for looking inside of apps and docs and
>>     the breakthrough is in realizing that that is like looking inside
>>     web pages. and these were not designed to be applied inside of a
>>     web page.   So it is no surprise that those do not fit.*
>>
>>     PK: Yes.  So we need other/better then to move this discussion
>>     forward.
>>     *GV2:  below*
>>     *
>>
>>     *
>>
>>
>>
>>         I think this approach fails for 2.4.2 Page Titled.  If we
>>         instead say that the "title" of the "software" is the
>>         software applications "name" (whether the executable name or
>>         the name as it appears in things like the Windows Start menu),
>>
>>     *GV:  That is exactly what I proposed. *
>>
>>
>>     then we have moved significantly away from what Understanding for
>>     2.4.2 is all about -> helping users locate the content &
>>     information they want.
>>     *GV:  WCAG does not provide all that user's want.  OR all that
>>     can be done.   It is a minimum standard for accessibility.  You
>>     can go much further.    Our goal however was to come up with a
>>     parallel to WCAG  --- not to go beyond it to meet broader needs.
>>       I would love to -- but not our job here.*
>>
>>
>>     PK:  I believe it isn't enough to simply have some words that
>>     don't fail in the software context.  Those words should also
>>     support the user needs expressed in Intent. Not all of the user
>>     needs.  Not writing new SCs - I'm not arguing for that expansion
>>     of our charter.  But if seems like a good idea but we can't
>>     actually find examples where this helps & works & makes things
>>     better for users with disabilities, then we shouldn't write that
>>     application text.
>>
>>     *GV2:  not sure what you are trying to get to / get at.    All of
>>     these are based on user needs.   Some things are more important
>>     in some contexts than others.  These success criteria were
>>     developed in the Web context and while they apply to software
>>     they may not be as important.   The consistency one is though. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Rather, if we want to apply 2.4.2 to the GUI environment, going
>>     with window title seems a better match.
>>     *GV:  that is inside the app.   and these do not apply inside a
>>     web app. *
>>     *that would be good -- but beyond what our charge is.   AND as we
>>     have found out -- it gets complicated and ambiguous as soon as we
>>     go deeper.*
>>
>>
>>     PK: OK, for Page Titled, this is pretty clearly about a VISIBLE
>>     page title, helping the user orient themselves to the correct
>>     content.
>>
>>     What is the content of a document editor that when launched opens
>>     a blank page?
>>
>>     *GV2:  Good to have -- but beyond what is proposed here. *
>>     *> until a document is published it does not need to conform to
>>     anything.*
>>     *> and windows inside of an application are not covered as
>>     entities if the unit of conformance is software.  So for the
>>     TITLE provision -- I applies to the unit of conformance which for
>>     WCAG was a web page but for WCAG2ICT it would be the software
>>     application.  Now in WCAG we would then attach any advisory
>>     techniques (for things that are not required but good to do) to
>>     that success criterion.   We aren't doing that in WCAG2ICT  but
>>     that is where all the techniques you want to document would be
>>     stored. *
>>
>>
>>         *
>>
>>         *
>>           But then what do we do about the burgeoning world of mobile
>>         software UIs?  And what about audio UIs?  Does Page Titled
>>         really make sense in those worlds?  Maybe not...
>>         *GV:  yep.  part of the complexity and ambiguity I was
>>         referring too.*
>>         *Go back through this will fresh eyes and see if you can see
>>         what I saw.    It eluded me / us for some time.  But once you
>>         grasp it -- these last 4 fall out nicely like the others.  
>>         Some are not as profound as what we were shooting for -- but
>>         they are what is parallel to WCAG and a number of the WCAG
>>         items were also not profound-- but were included to give a
>>         place to tie a whole raft of untestable, ambiguous but
>>         extremely helpful advisory techniques to. *
>>         *When you or others define techniques to go along with this
>>         -- then there will be these provisions to tie them all on to,
>>         and to go all the places you want to go - without worrying
>>         about whether they apply everywhere (they won't) or are all
>>         testable (they won't be).  But instead can worry about if
>>         they are helpful and powerful - which many of them will be.*
>>
>>
>>     PK: To repeat myself, I think each of these four need a paragraph
>>     or two of "WCAG2ICT Notes" describing how the user needs
>>     expressed in Intent are addressed in the non-web contexts of
>>     non-web documents & non-web software.
>>
>>     *GV2: agreed.     Now to find the time. *
>>
>>
>>
>>     Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Peter
>>
>>     On 9/14/2012 5:04 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>
>>         We have just 4 success criterion left.   And I think we are
>>         overthinking ourselves.
>>         Taking a cue from Mike -- we need to take a step back and
>>         look at what it is that we are trying to do.  Substituting
>>         individual words works for much but not all.    But if we
>>         look at the objective of the success criteria -- and we look
>>         at the fact that
>>         ·Web Apps often (usually?) are just a single web page -  then
>>         we can equate  "software" with "web page" in many places.
>>         ·"web page in a set of web pages" also often (usually?) is
>>         intended to apply to a set of pages that work as an entity on
>>         the web.  So the equiv of "web page in a set of web pages"
>>         for these SC would also be "software" (or document).
>>         this then leads us to something like the following  (Which I
>>         have put into the worksite as proposals.
>>         but look at them here and we may be able to close these.
>>         Replace “web pages” with “documents” and “software”
>>         *We have just 4 success criterion outstanding*
>>         * 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks:**A mechanism is available to bypass
>>         blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages.*
>>         ·Replace “ multiple web pages” with “in a document” and“in
>>         software"
>>         Note that the INTENT section of WCAG already says:
>>         “Examples of repeated blocks of content include but are not
>>         limited to navigation links, heading graphics, and
>>         advertising frames. Small repeated sections such as
>>         individual words, phrases or single links are not considered
>>         blocks for the purposes of this provision”
>>         *2.4.2: Page Titled:**Web pages have titles that describe
>>         topic or purpose.*
>>         ·Replace “web pages” with “documents” and “software”
>>
>>             Note that web pages are often full applications,  so a
>>             software application would be parallel.
>>
>>         *2.4.5: Multiple Ways: **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.*
>>         ·replacing "web pages" with "documents" and replacing "set of
>>         web pages" with "set of documents"
>>         ·replacing "web pages" with "software products" and replacing
>>         "set of web pages" with "set of software products"
>>         NOTES:
>>         1.*A set of documents*(or software products) is a group of
>>         documents (or software products) that are
>>
>>             1.*published together*, and
>>             2.*labeled as a set*within at least one of the member
>>             documents (or software products).
>>
>>         2.*Republishing or bundling*previously published documents or
>>         software products as a collection does not constitute a set
>>         of documents. (i.e. They do not become a set if bundled but
>>         not originally published as a set)
>>         3.*A set that is broken*apart and distributed is no longer a set.
>>         4.*A file directory*would be the equivalent of a site map for
>>         documents (or software products) in that it provides a link
>>         to each of the documents (software products) in the set of
>>         documents (software products).  The directory also acts as
>>         the HOME for the set.
>>         5.*A search function*in an operating systems (that finds
>>         documents or software products) would be equivalent to a web
>>         search function for web pages.
>>         6.*Authors can assume*that the non-web documents or software
>>         products will be stored and accessed on a major operating
>>         system with browse and search abilities unless they have
>>         specific information to the contrary.
>>         Final note to those evaluating 2.4.5:
>>         Although this provision is easily met, it is not always met. 
>>         The presence of this success criteria also makes it easier
>>         for people creating support materials to later include a wide
>>         range of advisory techniques that, while not always
>>         applicable, would
>>         *3.2.3: Consistent Navigation:**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.*
>>         ·Replace “multiple Web pages within a set of Web
>>         pages*”* with “in documents” and “in software”
>>
>>             And ask WCAG to add the following or something like it to
>>             the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document
>>
>>             "In this success criteria the term 'navigation
>>             mechanisms' is meant to refer to active lists of standard
>>             (not user generated) locations in the content that are
>>             provided by the author and that, when activated, cause
>>             the user to move to that particular standard location.
>>                 Navigation bars, a pull down menu that jumps you to
>>             different locations, and a set of tabs provided by the
>>             author, would be examples.
>>                 The following may be used for navigation but are not
>>             included in what is meant by navigation mechanisms in
>>             this success criterion :  escape keys, arrow keys, page
>>             down keys, headers that are only in the text of the
>>             document, tabs that a user creates or re-orders (because
>>             they are initiated by the user), the OK and Cancel
>>             buttons on a dialog (don't take you to consistent
>>             locations)."
>>
>>     --
>>     <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>>     Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>>     Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>>     500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>>     <green-for-email-sig_0.gif>
>>     <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to
>>     developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>>     --
>>     <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>>     Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>>     Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>>     500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>>     <green-for-email-sig_0.gif>
>>     <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to
>>     developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>>
>> --
>> <image001.gif> <http://www.oracle.com>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <image002.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed 
>> to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>

-- 
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 Tuesday, 18 September 2012 15:07:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 15:07:24 GMT