W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

normative issues to close

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <021e01c64cfd$84195f50$ef64d946@NC6000BAK>
Here are all the normative issues that we need to discuss and close. 

 

Some have been posted to the list separately - but I am keeping a separate
list here in one place of things we must clear 

 

These are the only normative items I am aware of .

 

If you know of any others - please let me know

 

Thanks


Gregg

 

 


ISSUE #1728  

Scoping is a very scary concept. With scoping it is possible to scope out
all 
the multimedia (e.g. training packages) that are critical to users and claim

full conformance with the rest of the site even though the rest of the site
is 
not much use without the multimedia. Scoping should be handled very
carefully. [TWG] 
 
Also another comment about whether we mean that you can or can't do this.
 
 
 
 

In putting together all our decisions into the Introduction and Conformance
sections - I found that we don't have any wording for a few things that I
think we decided. Below are three things - that if we agree on - should be
clear in the last call document. 

 

 

1)       We intend for a page to be accessible without requiring that all
links on a page lead to accessible content.  (otherwise one could never link
to content out of their control). 

2)       We want to allow people to separate content on their website and
make claims for some but not all of it.  (someone else may require
accessibility but we do not).

3)       We also decided that a process shouldn't be accessible up to its
final stages and then go inaccessible.  Like everything in a store but the
checkout.  

 

 

To fix this -the following addition to our scoping section is proposed which
currently reads 

 

<current text>


Scoping of conformance claims 


Conformance claims can be limited, or "scoped," to pertain to only some
parts of a Web site. All conformance claims, however, must be directed to a
URI or a range of URIs. Scoping to exclude a particular type of content (for
example, images or scripts) from a site is not allowed since it would allow
exclusion of individual success criteria. Scoping by URI to exclude sections
of a site is allowed so that authors can make claims for just some parts of
a site. Example 3 above is a scoped conformance claim. 

<end of current text>

<start proposed text to add to the end of the above>

 

Scoping can include and exclude parts of a site.  However processes and
authored units must be evaluated in their entirety.  If part of a process
unit does not conform (at some level), than no conformance (at that level)
can be made for any web unit in the process.  The same applies to authored
units.  

 

Example 1:  An online store has a series of pages that are used to select
and purchase products.  All pages in the sequence must conform in order to
claim conformance for any page that is part of the  sequence.

 

Example 2:  A site has a collection of videos for which it was not required
to and did not want to claim accessibility.   The site can locate the videos
in one location (e.g. example.com/movies) and then write a conformance claim
for the site or section of the site that excludes that location.  As long as
the pages on the site only linked to the videos (and did not embed them in a
Web page or other web unit) the conformance claim would be valid.  Linking
to inaccessible content does not make a page inaccessible.  Only if that
content is rendered together with the web page (or other web unit) or if the
content is itself a Web unit within the set of URIs to which the conformance
claim applies (or if the Web unit is part of a process for which a claim is
made) would it have to meet the guidelines in order for the claim to be
valid.

 

This scoping provision does not preclude an organization, customer, or
government from requiring that all parts of a site be accessible or meet
some standard including WCAG.  WCAG does not require that full websites
conform, although that is certainly seen as desirable.   A conformance claim
only requires conformance for Web Units that are in the URI set described in
the claim.

<end proposed additional text>




 

#2


1643: 2.2 L2 SC1 Change "any" to "all"


http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1643

 

For 2.2.2 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#N1054E>

"Content does not blink for more than 3 seconds, or a method is available to
stop any blinking content in the delivery unit" Change "any" to "all"
because use of "any" implies that the user can be required to turn off each
blinking item independently.

 

Proposal: Adopt change to SC and CLOSE.

 

 

 


1644: 2.2 L2 SC2 Change to "...paused by the for at least N minutes"


http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1644

 

A time duration during which a user-requested pause of moving content should
be provided, or alternately it should be specified that pause means "stop
indefinitely until user requests restart".

 

Proposal: add a definition to the glossary for "paused" in the SC -

 

Paused: timing or movement stops when user requests, and does not restart
unless the user requests.

 

Then CLOSE the issue.

 


1768: Clarify "invalidate the activity"


http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1768

 

SC 2.2.1 "Invalidate the activity" presumably means something like "defeat
the purpose of the activity", and should I think be defined as a term or a
substitute such as the above should be used in its place.  

 

Proposal: Adopt suggestion to replace "Invalidate the activity" with "defeat
the purpose of the activity" and CLOSE the issue.

 

 


1767   SC 1.3.5 (sequence affects meaning) should be Level 1

 
Should this be at level 1? How can structure/functionality be separated
from presentation if this criterion isn't satisfied, i.e., the content is
arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, but that sequence can't be
programmatically determined? In other words, it appears that if this
criterion
isn't met, anyone reading the content serially is going to face a major
accessibility challenge. On the other hand, if this sequence isn't part of
the
perceivable structure, and hence not covered at level 1, then everyone is
going to have a difficult time making sense of the material, regardless of
presentational modality. Hence my question: in what situations is this not
already addressed at level 1, and in those circumstances is the
accessibility
barrier so significant as to warrant moving this criterion to level 1 (or
alternatively level 2)?
---


 
 
The priority level seems way too low.  How is the requirement for a logical 
reading order not justified at level 1?  I would argue that this is a huge 
barrier to accessibility for web content like Flash and PDF.
 
=
 
The requirement for a logical reading order (1.3.5) is too low (level 3),
should be level 1.
----
 
1.3.5: This should be level 2. At the very least make it level 2 that the
content makes sense when 
linearized or a linearized version is provided. If someone uses a table for
layout then they shouldn't be 
allowed to get level 2 compliance on this point if the table content does
not make sense when linearized.
 
----
resolution: move SC 1.3.5, "When content is arranged in a sequence that
affects its meaning, that sequence can be programmatically determined" to
level 2. When techniques are more complete, we will revisit the question of
moving this to level 1.
 

1893 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1893>  concerns
that 4.1.2 prohibits HTML components


 

Close pending following action item.

Cynthia to write a technique or example that describes how to write an
accessible tree.

 

 

  1446 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1446> Add sign
language to alternative representations

 

John's proposal introduces Signed video as L3 requirement [1] "Signed video
is
available for key pages or sections of pages." WCAG WG rejected the proposal
at
the 14 June 2005 face-to-face meeting [2] and 23 June 2005 teleconference
[3].  
 
Someone needs to summarize why the proposal was rejected.

 

 


1772   "delivery unit" vs "content"

3.1.2: should be "in the delivery unit" rather than "in the content"? More
generally, where should the success criteria refer to "the content" rather
than to "the delivery unit", or vice versa? What is the principle to be used
in making this determination?


Surveyed 13 March 2006. 

 
Proposed 3.1.2 The natural language of each passage or phrase in the Web
unit
can be programmatically determined.
 
Proposal was widely supported, but there was an open question about whether
this
should be "Web unit or authored component."
 

CHANGE SC to Web Unit and 

CLOSE WITH 

 

Changed SC to Web Unit  .

 

 


403  Definition of "informative"


 

"informative" material: Again, "informative" is used without definition (how
does it differ from "non-normative"??)

 

Need to close this one.

 


 

 
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:39:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT