W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2010

re: AUWG Survey

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:31:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4B754A1C.3000703@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Jeanne,

I noticed your comments in the survey and wanted to clarify a couple of 
things in the proposals:

For "New Text in Intent of Success Criterion A.2.2.2:"
======================================================
Your comment: This is more confusing that what is currently there. The 
grammar in the second sentence is wrong "author that chosen"

JR: Sorry for not including the full text of the intent (the part 
included in the survey is additional text - covering a case which I 
think is important). Here is the full text:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors with 
disabilities have access to text presentation information that is 
available to other authors by editing views. This is important because 
authors that cannot see still need to understand how their web content 
will appear to end users who can. This success criterion pertains to the 
rendered properties of text on the screen, even if the properties differ 
from the web content being edited. For example, when an author that 
chosen their own display settings (as per Success Criterion A.2.3.1).


For "New Text in Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.2:"
======================================================

Your comment: I hope this is intended as a second paragraph and not as a 
replacement to the first paragraph. I think the introductory explanation 
is needed. Then this paragraph adds additional explanation and 
enhancement. Typo: "some know location".

JR: Right, this is a second paragraph, the full text is:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that neither the 
authoring tool's own user interface nor any rendered web content within 
editing views "traps" keyboard focus. This is a common problem when an 
interactive object is embedded in the web content. Authors might be able 
to move focus to the object (e.g., by using the "tab" key), but the 
authors are then unable to move the focus out using the keyboard, 
because keyboard control has passed to the embedded application. The 
first requirement (a) applies only to the authoring tool user interface, 
which is the part of the authoring tool that developers have the most 
control over. In this case, there simply should not be keyboard traps. 
If the author can move focus to a component using standard keyboard 
navigation commands (e.g., using the tab key), then they must be able to 
move focus out of the component in the same way. The second requirement 
(b) applies to renderings of web content. Because the web content may 
contain keyboard handlers, the authoring tool may not be able to prevent 
keyboard traps entirely. Therefore, the requirement is only that the 
authoring tool be able to restore the keyboard focus to some know 
location. This known location could be outside of the rendered area 
(e.g., the menus) or it might be the next rendered element.


For "Removing unnecessary term "option" from glossary "
=======================================================

Your comment: We use the term a lot. I don't think every use necessarily 
needs to be linked, but it should be included. (Sometimes the number of 
links to definitions interferes with reading.)

JR: We do use it a lot, but here's the definition:

option
When an author is presented with choices. An option may be local (e.g., 
prompting whether to save before ending an authoring session) or global 
(e.g., preference settings).

JR: We no longer use the local and global parts so that leaves "When an 
author is presented with choices"...as that really necessary to say?

JR: You make a good point about the number of links being 
distracting...we've tried to achieve a balance but probably still have 
too many links....I will make a new proposal about this.

Cheers,
Jan



> Here is the AUWG Survey for this week:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/
> 
> NOTE: We do not have a call this coming Monday. But, the survey is still 
> dated for Feb 15. If we get sufficient consensus on any survey items by 
> then, those changes will be incorporated into a new editors draft and a 
> new survey will be put out in time for our next meeting on Feb. 22.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jan
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 12:31:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 February 2010 12:31:56 GMT