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

RE: two question per Action items 54 and 56

From: Hoffman, Allen <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:50:23 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F7B0040F7A7C4428E160959229DE9F30915704D@D2ASEPRSH126.DSA.DHS>
I don't believe  I'd agree that the number of individuals is the deciding factor.
We have simulations for training at DHS which are intended for individual use, and multi-user use both, which are intended to simulate management of events in a specific timed setting.  I would tend to suppose these are actually "not" realtime, but rely on realtime-like operation so are a separate class.  In practice the requirement to operate on a time base precludes interventions to that, so if such can be included in discussions it would help folks understand.  If this concept creates more complexity within something which should be simple, leave it out for now and leave it for more detailed documentation in other locations.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Michael Pluke
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; Hoffman, Allen; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: Re: two question per Action items 54 and 56

Perhaps we should add it to the list we send to WCAG WG.
I will add to the survey question for this week.

Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net

On Sep 27, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> wrote:

I agree with Gregg's analysis.

This specific example, together with Gregg' rationale for why it would not be realtime, would be a very good worked example of something that might look like realtime but is not. Hopefully people who saw this negative example could then try to apply similar logic to decode many similar uncertain situations that they might worry about.

Best regards


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu<http://trace.wisc.edu>]
Sent: 26 September 2012 15:23
To: Hoffman, Allen
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> Force
Subject: Re: two question per Action items 54 and 56

If it is a one person training - then it would not be realtime.  This is the same as a one person game.   Being able to slow it down would be important.

If there are multiple people in the training at the same time -- then it is connected to real world by other people and would be realtime.    Being able to slow it down may be important here as well, but the real time makes it not practical and it would be covered by the exception.

Note however that in case number one, if it were a test of some type and timing was important to the test, then it would fall under the testing exception but not the real-time exception


On Sep 26, 2012, at 7:54 AM, "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV<mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>> wrote:

I have a question regarding realtime.
Would a simulation which simulates realtime be considered the same as realtime?  For example, simulating interactive online management of an event with the intent to teach users how to react in specific ways within specific time frames?  I think the answer is yes but never hurts to see if anyone else agrees.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu<http://trace.wisc.edu>]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:28 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> Force
Subject: two question per Action items 54 and 56

Below is the text to be submitted to WCAG WG per the action items 54 and 56.

These will be discussed/approved/modified on Friday's WCAG2ICT call and submitted to WCAG WG next week.


ACTION-54: Ask WCAG to add examples to WCAG INTENT for 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide, and 2.2.3 No Timing per his comment on the survey

When looking at the definition of Real time event (which is used on 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide, and 2.2.3 No Timing ) it is unclear what is included and not included as real time events.  Currently the definition includes examples of things that are.  But examples of things that are not would also be helpful.

 real-time event:

event that a) occurs at the same time as the viewing and b) is not completely generated by the content

Example 1: A Webcast of a live performance (occurs at the same time as the viewing and is not prerecorded).

Example 2: An on-line auction with people bidding (occurs at the same time as the viewing).

Example 3: Live humans interacting in a virtual world using avatars (is not completely generated by the content and occurs at the same time as the viewing).
It is requested that the following note be added to the INTENT section of  2.2.1 Timing Adjustable, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide, and 2.2.3 No Timing

"The following are examples of things that have time limits but are NOT real-time event -- and are therefore covered by this success criterion:
        - a 1 person video game not linked to real world events
        - a virtual world with no other human controlled actors or ties to real world events

ACTION-56: Propose text to add to SC 3.3.4 WCAG INTENT to cover the concern about the verb "access" in the definition of "user-controllable"

When looking at the definition of user-controllable (which is used on 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data )) it is unclear what the term "accessed" means.  Does this mean that this only applies to data that the user can delete?

3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For Web pages<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef> that cause legal commitments<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#legalcommitmentsdef> or financial transactions for the user to occur, that modify or delete user-controllable<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#user-controllabledef> data in data storage systems, or that submit user test responses, at least one of the following is true: (Level AA)

  1.  Reversible: Submissions are reversible.

  1.  Checked: Data entered by the user is checked for input errors<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#input-errordef> and the user is provided an opportunity to correct them.

  1.  Confirmed: A mechanism<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#mechanismdef> is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the submission.

data that is intended to be accessed by users
Note: This does not refer to such things as Internet logs and search engine monitoring data.
Example: Name and address fields for a user's account.

Suggest that the following be added to the INTENT of SC 3.3.4

NOTE: The purpose of the phrase "user-controllable data" is to eliminate the need to notify the user each time invisible user-data such as tracking logs  are deleted.   The term "accessed" in the definition of  "user-controllable' is meant to refer to information that the user can access and see - but not necessarily information the user would be able to edit themselves.  For example, banking records showing the past months transactions would be an example of 'user-controllable' data that they can access and use.  If they did something to cause this to be deleted, then one of the three options should be true.  However if the bank is keeping track of which pages the person visits during a particular visit, and this information is never shown to the user, then that user information would not be information that the user "accessed" (it is invisible to the user) and it would therefore not be "user-controllable" data.
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 14:51:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:46 UTC