W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2011

My remaining AUWG action items from the June 6 meeting

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:07:46 -0400
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A3F32066B@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
>From the June 6 Meeting: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/06-au-minutes.html

To look up what was decided about prominence and apply it to UAWG6  [related to: B.2.5 - UAWG6]

RESULT: The definition actually was re-worded in the last public draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-ATAG20-20110426/#def-At-Least-As-Prominent), so our response is out of date.

PROPOSED RESPONSE: AUWG: The definition of "at least as prominent" has been re-worded (http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-ATAG20-20110426/#def-At-Least-As-Prominent). The definition is now based on the number of opening actions rather than the order of presentation, because the order is dependent on so many factors.

BUT my proposal from earlier suggests dropping the prominence requirement:

To acknowledge that dynamic content does provide a challenge to determining a "status" [related to: B.2.2 - IBM53]

IBM53: B.2.2.6 Difficult to have a web email client or a wiki provide a status report on accessibility of dynamic content. There is value, but this is a significant requirement, should be AAA and configurable.

JR: A few comments:
- IBM53 actually seems to be singling out email and wikis and places where it would be hard to communicate a status, rather than saying it is hard to arrive at a status.
- WCAG 2.0 covers DHTML content and ATAG 2.0 point to WCAG 2.0 so I don't think we have a real gap.
- still, the proposed response might have been too short...

AUWG: The status requirement ("B.3.1.4 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA) Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc. ") is simply that the author receive information about the state of things from the accessibility checker. The note clarifies that the format of the report is not specified. 

If the checker hasn't run, there will be nothing to report. Your comment raises email, wikis and dynamic content as issues, which we will address separately:
- in the case of email, an accessibility checker, like a spell checker is something a sender may or may not choose to run. For example, sending a quick personal note to a known recipient requires less vigilance than posting to a publicly-archived forum.
- wikis have the challenge that the wiki system doesn't usually have access to the content until the user submits it (though DHTML implementations change this). However, this need not be a problem since the user can re-edit content if/when content issues are identified by the system (whether they are issues of wiki syntax, spelling or accessibility)
- by "dynamic content" you may be referring to DHTML-type content. This certainly presents challenges to automated checkers, however some progress has been made on checker design in this area and in these cases communication of results back to the author seems to be a reasonable use case.


(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 18:08:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:00 UTC