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

proposals from team A

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:54:32 -0500
Message-ID: <432766B8.5080607@trace.wisc.edu>
To: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hello,

The following proposals related to guideline 3.2 came from this week's 
"team a" meeting:
*
1.) Proposal:* remove 3.2 L1 SC1 [1] (Any change of context is 
implemented in a manner that can be programmatically determined.)

*Rationale:* if you meet the other level 1 success criterion, then a 
user agent should be able to programmatically determine changes in 
context in a fairly straightforward way.

*2.) Proposal:* Move 3.2 L2 SC2 [2]: (When any component receives focus, 
it does not cause a change of context) to level 1.

*Rationale:* In discussing this criterion, the subgroup felt that this 
was a significant barrier and should be promoted to level 1.

*3.) Proposal:* Move 3.2 L2 SC1 [3]: (Components that are repeated on 
multiple delivery units within a set of delivery units occur in the same 
order each time they are repeated.) to level 3.

*Rationale:* In discussing this criterion, the subgroup felt that this 
was not a significant barrier to accessibility and should be moved to 
level 3.

*4.) Proposal:* Revise definition of "change in context" to read:

change of context
    change of user agent, viewport, or focus; or complete change of main
    content.

*Rationale:* Removed "user interface controls" from this definition so 
that this criterion wouldn't prohibit standard form control show/hide 
behavior practices such as Gez's example [4]. We also added "main" to 
the phrase "complete change of content" so that changes to nearly all of 
a page (ex. everything but the logo changes) would be considered changes 
of context, but minor changes such as expanding navigation menus would not.

*5.) Proposal:* Add a definition of "same order" that reads:

same order
    Items are considered to be in the same order even if other items are
    inserted or removed from the original order. For example, expanding
    navigation menus may insert an additional level of detail or a
    secondary navigation section may be inserted into the reading order.

*Rationale:* In reviewing 3.2 L2 SC1, a suggestion was made that we may 
need to define same order to clarify that this does not apply to 
expanding navigation menus.

I have created a survey to collect feedback on these proposals [5]. 
Please complete the survey in preparation for this week's Thursday call.

Thanks,

-Ben

[1] <http://tinyurl.com/aupen>
[2] <http://tinyurl.com/9hybx>
[3] <http://tinyurl.com/abdy3>
[4] <http://juicystudio.com/wcag/changecontext.html>
[5] <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/3-2-proposals-teama/>
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 23:54:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT