Re: Results from today's WCAG WG meeting: all our changes accepted, with two editorial edits; also a review of our remaining tasks

I will buy that.

it should say -- receives or gives up focus -- BUT IT DOESN’T.   So we shouldn’t either  -(or we are extending the success criterion )

Peter is correct.


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

On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> Although I think Peter is strictly correct, I think Gregg’s addition just makes things clearer. It doesn’t rely on the reader figuring out the consequential behaviours that Peter describes.
>  
> Even if not strictly essential, is there any harm in making Gregg’s addition?
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Mike
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
> Sent: 11 June 2013 23:18
> To: Peter Korn
> Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Results from today's WCAG WG meeting: all our changes accepted, with two editorial edits; also a review of our remaining tasks
>  
> Hmmm..   That is true but if a person says  (the change was caused by part A losing focus but not by part B gaining focus)  it sounds like it isn't covered.   But if you don't want to add it -- I am OK.   This isn't normative, just a note.   I think it is a better, clearer, more accurate note if the phrase is added.   But it is just a note so doesn’t change anything if the phrase is omitted. 
>  
>  
> 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
>  
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Gregg,
> 
> (sorry for the repeat Gregg; I see now I didn't reply to the list)
> 
> I'm not sure your small change is actually needed.  If a "compound document" is made up of "Part A" and "Part B", and "Part A" is currently being interacted with, then any non-focus means to move "out of Part A" is a "move into Part B" - the part with which they are now going to interact.  If that results in a change of context, then it's a (non-focusing) change of context.  When they then decide to "leave Part B", they are necessarily indicating a desire to interact with "Part A" - and so again, any (non-focusing) change of context that results is by our exception.
> 
> Because leaving B means going into A, I think it is sufficient to only have this text cover that "direction".  A side effect of that leaving may well be a loss of focus, but that isn't the action that "initiates the change of context".
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 6/11/2013 10:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> looks good
>  
> now that is see it -- I see one small change needed.
>  
> other than putting focus on that portion of the compound document
> other than putting focus on or removing it from that portion of the compound document
>  
> 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
>  
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi gang,
> 
> At today's WCAG WG meeting, we went over our penultimate survey.  They accepted as proposed:
>  Definition of accessibility services of platform software
> Programmatically Determined
> Programmatically Set
> Principle 4: 
> Guideline 4.
> Short Name added to title
> They had two minor editorial changes to the Note in Change of Context, and the Note in SC 3.2.1 On Focus:
> 
> In the Change of context note they removed a phrase to make things more clear:
> 
> [Note: a change in the user agent might include bringing up a new window to handle a new or some portion of the document, or might be a significant change in the menus and/or toolbars that are displayed and available for interacting with some portion of the document.]
>  
> 
> In the SC 3.2.1 Note, the modified the first phrase of the final sentence:
> Note: Some compound documents and their user agents are designed to provide significantly different viewing and editing functionality depending upon what portion of the compound document is being interacted with (e.g. a presentation that contains an embedded spreadsheet, where the menus and toolbars of the user agent change depending upon whether the user is interacting with the presentation content, or the embedded spreadsheet content).  So long as the mechanism by which the user indicates they are interacting with a different portion of the compound document is by some means other than reception of focus within that portion of the compound document (e.g. by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), that [If the user uses a mechanism other than putting focus on that portion of the compound document with which they mean to interact (e.g. by a menu choice or special keyboard gesture), any resulting] <glossary link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be subject to this success criterion because it was not caused by a change of focus.
> 
> Gregg and I feel these are editorial changes, as no meaning changes.  If anyone disagrees, please reply in this thread stating that, and we can discuss it on Friday.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I think all the work that remains is noted on To do before 3rd/final public draft:
> Michael to integrate all approved changes (much of this is done, some still remains)
> Potential edits to come from Judy to the introduction
> Decide (and spell out in introduction) what our comment period should be
> Misc. editorial issues (do WCAG2ICT Notes go inside or outside the "white box", etc.)
> Our final check (and approval) of the intended 3rd public draft
> WCAG WG's final check (and approval) of the intended 3rd public draft
> 
> How much of this can we do in the coming 7 days...?
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>  
>  
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment