W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2009

EOWG: For 22 May discussion: WCAG and MWBP comments

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:34:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4A161D58.1080809@w3.org>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
CC: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
EOWG:

We received comments from the WCAG WG on the MWBP-WCAG documents, which are archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-eo-editors/2009May/0003.html

Alan has integrated them into the technical document Editor's Draft at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/latest

Yeliz implemented them into the Shared Experience document, which is attached (the same information in linear and tabular format). Below are some points for discussion on these documents.

> * "Embedded non-text objects (images, sound, video) with no text  
> alternative" & "Important information in non-text content (images,  
> multimedia, CSS effects)" seem like the same use case. Recommend  
> combining. Also, the Web context gets into the area of  
> accessibility-supported Web technologies (Information not available  
> to user whose browser, assistive technology, other user agent  
> doesn't support object).

I prefer to keep these two separate as I think even though they  
overlap they focus on different barriers.

> * Free-text entry (for example, alphabetical characters allowed in  
> numeric fields) - references WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.4 (include  
> place-holding characters in text areas) and WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1 (non- 
> text content). The issue being described here is a user with a  
> mobility impairment who has trouble entering information or a  
> mobile device users who must use a small keypad. WCAG 1.0 10.4 (pri  
> 3) is a work-around for user agents who don't support empty  
> controls well. And WCAG 2.0 1.1.1 is not relevant at all because  
> text areas are not "non-text content". WCAG 2.0 does have some SC  
> around errors in forms but I don't think they are related to the  
> MWBPs for this use case (MINIMIZE KEYSTROKES, PROVIDE DEFAULTS,  
> DEFAULT INPUT MODE). I recommend that this use case be deleted from  
> the table.

I think this an interesting use case and it is a nice one that shows  
overlaps. In fact, the listed MWBP explicitly references to WCAG 10.4  
<http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES>. I agree that  
WCAG 2.0 1.1.1 may be is not very relevant, but may be we can refer  
to Guideline 2.1 here or Guideline 3.3.

> Operable
>
> * Scripting required to operate or generate content - references  
> WCAG 2.0 keyboard SC 2.1.1 and 2.1.3. I don't think there is a  
> mapping to a WCAG 2.0 SC for this. Rather it maps to the concept of  
> relying on scripts as an accessibility supported Web technology.

Not sure how to address this.

###




On 20 May 2009, at 23:03, Shawn Henry wrote:

> [*** Yeliz's document ***]
>
> Perceivable
>
> * Multimedia with no captions - references WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1.  
> Should reference 1.2.2, 1.2.4, and 1.2.8.

Replaced WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1 with these three SCs.

> * Audio-only prompts (beeps) for important information (warnings,  
> errors) - references WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1. Should reference 1.2.1.

Replaced WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1 with 1.2.1

>
> * Embedded non-text objects (images, sound, video) with no text  
> alternative - typo - "losses information" should be "loses  
> information"

Fixed this typo.

>
> * "Embedded non-text objects (images, sound, video) with no text  
> alternative" & "Important information in non-text content (images,  
> multimedia, CSS effects)" seem like the same use case. Recommend  
> combining. Also, the Web context gets into the area of  
> accessibility-supported Web technologies (Information not available  
> to user whose browser, assistive technology, other user agent  
> doesn't support object).


I prefer to keep these two separate as I think even though they  
overlap they focus on different barriers.

> * Free-text entry (for example, alphabetical characters allowed in  
> numeric fields) - references WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.4 (include  
> place-holding characters in text areas) and WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1 (non- 
> text content). The issue being described here is a user with a  
> mobility impairment who has trouble entering information or a  
> mobile device users who must use a small keypad. WCAG 1.0 10.4 (pri  
> 3) is a work-around for user agents who don't support empty  
> controls well. And WCAG 2.0 1.1.1 is not relevant at all because  
> text areas are not "non-text content". WCAG 2.0 does have some SC  
> around errors in forms but I don't think they are related to the  
> MWBPs for this use case (MINIMIZE KEYSTROKES, PROVIDE DEFAULTS,  
> DEFAULT INPUT MODE). I recommend that this use case be deleted from  
> the table.

I think this an interesting use case and it is a nice one that shows  
overlaps. In fact, the listed MWBP explicitly references to WCAG 10.4  
<http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKES>. I agree that  
WCAG 2.0 1.1.1 may be is not very relevant, but may be we can refer  
to Guideline 2.1 here or Guideline 3.3.

> * Content formatted using tables or CSS, and reading order not  
> correct when linearized (for example when CSS or tables not  
> rendered) - the experience for this use case is "User cannot access  
> the correct ordering of the information on a page because the  
> content is garbled." Recommend changing this to "User cannot  
> understand the content correctly when it's presented in a linear  
> order."

Done.

> Operable
>
> * Scripting required to operate or generate content - references  
> WCAG 2.0 keyboard SC 2.1.1 and 2.1.3. I don't think there is a  
> mapping to a WCAG 2.0 SC for this. Rather it maps to the concept of  
> relying on scripts as an accessibility supported Web technology.

Not sure how to address this.

> * Special plug-in required - same issue as scripting required.  
> Also, there is a typo in this line. It repeats the column header in  
> the Disability context column.

Removed the repeated column header.

> * Non-descriptive link label - disability context sounds like blind  
> users can only read links out of context in a list. Suggest  
> changing to "User who is blind often accesses a list of links on a  
> page without the context around them."

Updated that sentence.

> Understandable
>
> * Blinking, moving, scrolling, or auto-updating content -  
> references WCAG 2.0 SC 3.2.5. I think it should also reference  
> 2.2.2. In the disabilities context, there is also the distraction  
> issue.

Added a reference to 2.2.2.

Regards,
Yeliz.




Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 03:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:55 GMT