- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:06:31 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <50588DF7.5060802@oracle.com>
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 UTC