W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Guideline 4.2 Subgroup Report

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:38:15 -0700
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20050419141629.01d4b460@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Following the initial impact analysis for Guideline 4.2 [1], Gregg raised 
concerns about the part of Guideline 4.2 that addresses content that 
creates user interface elements [2].  An expanded subgroup was formed to 
look into how to address this type of functionality.

The group spent some time trying to characterize the problem. Wendy 
proposed the distinction between a web application and the user agent that 
renders a web application. The group used this analysis to examine the 
UAAG1 Priority 1 Checkpoints to determine whether we thought they were
   1. already covered by a WCAG requirement,
   2. a responsibility of the user agent, or
   3. required changes or additions to WCAG.

Changes in category 3 included exposing additional information 
programmatically (conditional content, background images, animated images, 
animated or blinking text, automatic content retrieval, change of content 
focus),  We may also need to make some existing SC of Guideline 2.4 higher 
priority.

The most important additions would be those necessary to ensure that UAAG 
Guideline 6 will be satisfied. This includes requiring that role, state and 
value of document objects be programmatically available, and that there be 
notifications about changes to document content.

I will post the 4 additional messages to the mailing list:
   1. Wendy's description of the difference between a web app and user agent
   2. A summary of how we propose that the UAAG P1 checkpoints be covered 
by web application authors,with dependencies on the user agent identified.
   3. Wendy's work on UAAG Guideline 6
   4. Loretta's work on UAAG Guideline 9

In addition, we considered the issue of web apps that generate web content. 
We felt that they should be required to conform for ATAG.

At Thursday's meeting, we need feedback from the working group.
   1. Are we headed in the right direction?
   2. Do these definitions make sense, and are we addressing the right problem?
   3. Is our analysis correct, and do the proposals make sense?
   4. If we make the proposed additions, do we still need Guideline 4.2?

If we reach consensus, the subgroup will turn our analysis into specific 
proposals, and prepare an issue summary for Guideline 4.2.

Loretta

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0015.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0017.html

Subgroup members: John Slatin, Jason White, Wendy Chisolm, Joe Clark, Andi 
Snow-Weaver, David MacDonald, Mike Barta, Loretta Guarino Reid
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 22:38:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC