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

GL 2.2 issue summary (close/clarify/not addressed)

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:11:12 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Lectoribus salutem,

I have compared the remaining open issues for GL 2.2 against the latest 
draft (the 16 June editor's draft) to determine which we can close.

1. Issues that are closed (8)

803 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=803]
Example not applicable [server-side timeouts?]
See the new L3 SC3 accepted at F2F (which also covers server-side time outs 
and which closes issue 1525). The example is now applicable. 

1346 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1346]
1381 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1381]
L1 SC: time limits conflict with usability
L1 SC proposal "Content does not have time-outs unless they are an 
essential part of the interaction. (etc.)" was rejected in 26 May 2005 

1347 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1347]
1382 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1382]
L2 SC: conflicts with usability
26 May 2005 teleconference: blinking will not be banned.
June 2005 F2F discussion: proposal to reword SC on blinking accepted 

1499 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1499]
L2 SC1 - describe functional outcome
Addressed by new wording of L2 SC1 accepted at June 2005 F2F 

1502 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1502]
L3 SC2 - describe functional outcome and improve readability
Addressed by new wording of L3 SC2 accepted during 26 May 2005 

1525 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1525]
coverage of inactivity timeout
Addressed by new L3 SC3 accepted at June 2005 F2F 

2. Issues that seem to be closed, but may need clarification (8)

943 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=943]
L1 SC1: Why 10 times the default?
1092 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1092]
Time limits in Guideline 2.2 are still too small.
June 2005 F2F discussion: "10 times" was based on experiences with people 
with motor disabilities / by talking to relevant population. E.g. keyboard 
Action item: Find references 

1044 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1044]
Suggestions for time-limits guideline [L1 (ten times the default) and L2 SC 
2 (blinking)]
For "ten times": see issue 943 (clarification).
Blinking: addressed by reworded L2 SC1 (accepted at F2F: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item02) in 16 June 
editor's draft, with resolution to explain "3 seconds" in the Guide doc.

1348 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1348]
1383 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1383]
L3 SC: conflicts with usability (allowing the option that the user can 
postpone non-emergency interruptions such as updating of content is 
requiring more effort than necessary from the user)
26 May 2005 teleconference: new wording for L3 SC2 
This addresses the issue but does not clarify the level at which 
interruptions can be postponed: each instance, whole delivery unit, whole 

1349 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1349]
Example 2 conflicts with usability (option to turn off updating of content)
1385 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1385]
Non-default user settings harm accessibility [example 2]
26 May 2005 teleconference: having updating of content turned off by 
default and providing the option to turn it on in "user preferences" may 
not provide greater usability.
These two issues depend on resolutions for issues 1348 and 1383 (L3 SC2).

1384 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1384]
example ("dialog that disappears after a short period") conflicts with 
"Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2 itself uses a warning which 
times out after at least 10 seconds. Is this not conflicting?"
The time in the current draft(s) is 20 seconds, but the question is still 
relevant. However, I don't see a conflict; it is just an example of 
something that has to meet the L1 SC.

3. Issues that are not addressed in current draft (4)

880 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=880#c3]
Should blinking and movement be covered?
Last comment in Bugzilla says:
"Proposal accepted in November 4, 2004 telecon [1] and included in November 19,
2004 working draft [2].
This issue shoud already be covered by UAAG. Pending baseline decisions, move
success criterion 2 to repair strategies."

26 May 2005 telecon 
[http://www.w3.org/2005/05/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05]: Yes, but we 
need a proposal.

Blinking is already covered. Where movement refers to live presentations, 
this is a user agent issue.

987 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=987]
Add people who use an interpreter to the benefits
The current wording (November draft; June resolutions draft) differs from 
wording on which was comments was based, but does not address the issue. Do 
we want to add this benefit?
Note that the second benefit was reworded after the November draft 

1432 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1432]
unsolicited transitions confuse [new benefit for elderly and people with 
low computer literacy]
Resolution from 26 May 2005 teleconference: discuss this benefit on the 
mailing list: see thread starting at 
Earlier, a decision was made to only include benefits that related 
specifically to people with disabilities. This decision
might be amended to allow for more attention to older users, but no 
decision has been taken yet.

1459 [http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1459]
time limits should not apply to testing [US ADA / Section 504 allows 
extensions even for time-based testing as a disability accommodation]
This was discussed during the 26 May 2005 teleconference. The fact that 
Section 504 requires more than WCAG was not considered as a problem; the 
reverse may have been. One comment in the survey said: 'As I read the 
proposed SC, it would permit the kind of extended time-limits required by 
Section 504. Even if a time limit is "an essential" part of an activity 
such as an examination, the ability to extend it to comply with applicable 
law is also "an essential" part of the activity.'
At the F2F, the WG agreed to keep the wording of L1 SC1, so this issue is 
not addressed. I'll come up with a proposal later.


Christophe Strobbe

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2005 11:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC