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

Issues - misc

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022601c64cfd$917d9080$ef64d946@NC6000BAK>
Looking through and closing out issues

 

All of these are   no changes.

 

 

Look at  1839 however to be sure we did that.

 

Thank

Gregg

 

 

 

--------------- 


1358   Testability of guidelines

Testability of guidelines: 
Computer programs will never be able to test accessibility guidelines
satisfactorily so should it not be recommended that web pages are checked by
computer programs *and* (not or) people who understand these guidelines?
It is utopic to expect different people to obtain identical results when
testing for accessibility - there will always be a degree of interpretation.

 

CLOSE WITH 

We changed text to avoid this mis-statement. 
Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand this
document
 

 

 

--------------- 


 1360  Conformance claim 2 seems very complicated

Complex issue with multiple topics
Is there not an easier way (and maybe less accurate way if need
be) to express this? A 'URI pattern' is defined in terms of a 'regular
expression', which is not even the commonly used definition of a regular
expression. This makes the guidelines hard to understand for anyone but
specialists in a very narrow technical field. 
 
The same applies to the definition of 'delivery units': this is quite
technical.
 
What is meant with 'content negotiation'?
 
Why should conformance claims be transmitted in the HTTP header? 







 
our Web applications claim AA conformance, but they do not reside at any
specific URI, but rather at many URIs where users have installed the
software
The applications exist as archived bundles of  software, that when unpacked
and installed on a user's Web site, will conform with WCAG AA
specifications.
 
A Web application distributed by CD may not have an associated URI at all,
but may otherwise be conformant. The #2 requirement should also include
something like "...or a software version identifier where a URI is not
available."
 

CLOSE WITH 

  
- We have changed the text to make it easier.   
- Delivery unit is also gone.   
- Content negotiation is a regular web term and is used in its standard
meaning.
 That would be hard to do a primer on here. 
- Language re transmittal in HTTP header is removed
- RE downloads.  Our guidelines only cover content as defined in our
glossary
- RE downloads that install to a server - until it is on server it isn't web
content.  The manufacturer can advertise that it is AA conformant when
installed properly.  No need to claim til installed. 

 

--------------- 


1835 GL 1.4 should require legible contents when using high contrast
settings

Most users who rely on very high contrast simply activate a relevant setting
in their user agent, or more commonly in the underlying Operating System.
There should be a requirement that content is legible under such
circumstances.
 

CLOSE WITH 

  
Discussed at the 26 January 2006 Teleconference [1]:
 
This would appear to require authors to know what operating system features
would be for users (on different operating systems). We do not know how to
write techniques for something like this.

 

--------------- 


 1839 GL 3.2: require autoscroll and refresh to be controlled by user

Pages which auto scroll and refresh should be at the instance of the user in
case the user is using screen reader.
 

CLOSE WITH 

  
I think this is covered under 2.2.3 (Content can be paused by the user
unless
the timing or movement is part of an activity where timing or movement is
essential.)
 
Automatic refresh is covered in techniques that related to SC 2.2.1, 2.2.5
and
3.2.5.
 
We should be able to close this issue once these techniques are approved by
the WG.
[JUST CHECKING _ DONE NOW??  IF SO THEN CLOSE]
 
 
 

--------------- 


810 Need solution for correct pronunciation of acronyms and abbreviations

 Level 1 success criteria, # 2 - The real problem with
acronyms and abbreviations is how the speech synthesizers speak the
acronym, not so much how it is expanded.  A subcommittee/WG needs to be
established to identify the various scenarios and apply some logic as to
what the author should do, what the AT/browser should do, what the
synthesizer should do, and what the user should do.  For example, the
author can expand the acronym VoiceXML to "voice extendable markup
language", and the user can choose to expand to hear the full expansion,
but how does the user get to hear Voice X.M.L. instead of "voiceexmuhl"?
How the acronym is pronounced should be part of aural cascading style
sheets, which is not well defined in this scenario.
 

CLOSE WITH 

The working group has added a provision for adding pronunciation where it is
needed to determine meaning. The group does not feel that requirements
should be added beyond that. 
 

 

--------------- 


 1752 individual words or phrases that have become part of the primary
language of the content?

 
Several comments to the effect that screen readers will mispronounce.   Like
Touche'
e.g. I don't understand the reason for this exception: words like "check-in"
are often used in Italian, but unless they are pronounced with the English
phonemes, they are highly distorted (namely "check-in" would be pronounced
as "kek-in")
 

CLOSE WITH 

If the words are part of the natural language, then they should appear in
dictionaries and should also be covered in pronunciation rules and
exceptions.  If they are borrowed but not part of natural language then they
should not fall in this category.  

 

 

--------------- 


 1798    SC 3.1.5 should depend on intended audience educational ability

Whilst I understand the sentiment behind 3.1.5  ( When text requires reading
ability more advanced than 
the lower secondary education level, one or more of the following types of
supplemental content is 
available), surely it is taking this a little too far and the intended
audiences educational ability should come into the frame as opposed to
having to provide a range of limited equivalent content without much if any
perceivable gain in a majority of areas.
 

CLOSE WITH 

The working group felt that the proposed approach was best - but set
conformance so that not all level 3 success criteria needed to be
implemented in order to secure triple-A conformance.

 

--------------- 


1813 SC 3.1.5 not an adequate replacement for WCAG1 14.1 "use clear and
simple language" 

Long post. But key issue is here:
I am particularly concerned that WCAG 2.0 does not appear to contain an
adequate replacement for the 
WCAG 1.0, Checkpoint 14.1, "Use the clearest and simplest language
appropriate for a site's content 
(Priority 1)".  WCAG 2.0, Success Criterion 3.1.5 is probably the nearest
equivalent.
 

CLOSE WITH 

The working group worked long and hard to figure out how to create
meaningful yet testable techniques for this area. Special groups worked on
it several times.  The current 3.1 success criteria are the best that could
be developed and the best that came in from all field comments.   

 

--------------- 


 1861 Require use of familiar vocabulary

 None of the following subsections mention using vocabulary that is familiar
to average people.  
Benchmarking vocabulary against the language used everyday by the public is
a better measure of ease 
of understanding than the readability tests mentioned in section 3.1.5.  
 

CLOSE WITH 

The working group looked at this and other methods for measuring readability
and felt that the measures proposed were the best, testable approach.   

 

--------------- 


1875 SC 3.1.5: spoken version won't help with vocabulary issues 

Criterion 3.1.5 suggests that if text requires advanced reading ability, a
spoken version of the text content could be made available. However the
likely cause of the problem would seem to be a user's limited vocabulary,
and a spoken version will not significantly alter the user's vocabulary.
 

CLOSE WITH 

  

This is true.  But several approaches are proposed.  Not all will help all
people.  But understanding spoken language is usually much better than
ability to read so it was listed as one of the approaches.  

--------------- 


 1696 Need better glossary for "captions", "transcripts", and "subtitle

 

CLOSE WITH 

New definitions have been created that are more international.  

--------------- 


 1721 delivery, perceivable unit need real-life examples

 

CLOSE WITH 

  

No longer use Perceivable units or delivery units.   

--------------- 


 1766  Missing glossary entries

"Variation in presentation of text" should be defined in the glossary.
2.2.1: Define "time-out" in the glossary.
2.5.4: "Context-sensitive help" should be defined in the glossary.
3.2.2: "Input field" needs to be defined in the glossary.
4.2.3: Define "role", "state" and "value" in the glossary. Here, as
  elsewhere, I am pointing out terms crucial to the interpretation and
  application of the success criteria which aren't linked to glossary
entries,
  but which are technical terms that stand in need of definition.
4.2.4: Define "explicitly associated" in the glossary.
4.2.6: Need definitions for all of the items mentioned here. (content, 
structure, selection, focus, attributes, values, state, and relationships)
 
 

CLOSE WITH 

 Variation in presentation of text, role, structure, content are defined
 
The following terms no longer used : state, selection, explicitly associated

 
Other terms are used in traditional sense with examples in How to meet.

 

--------------- 


 1845 "language of the surrounding text"

Felix Sasaki says:
 
"Foreign passages or phrases are passages or phrases in a language that is
different from the language of 
the surrounding text." How does the notion of "surrounding" fit to text
structured with markup languages, 
e.g. attributes describing element content, or tables with rows in various
languages like:
 
Language       Text
German  Das ist ein Beispiel.
English This is an example.
 

CLOSE WITH 

 
Use the text before it and after it in natural reading order.  

 

--------------- 


1848 definition of "URI pattern" 

 Felix Sasaki says:
 
Definition of "URI pattern": We propose to define this pattern in terms of
IRI, with a reference to the IRI specification.
 

CLOSE WITH 

  

At this time we  are going to use URI in the standard. 

 

 

--------------- 


1854 Understanding WCAG2 needs more technology-specific examples 

 
 
Robust technology-specific examples must be provided for each success
criterion.  
Common failures (plural) must be identified by the working group.  
Ideally, non-W3C technology examples would be provide for each.
 

CLOSE WITH 

Examples now provided in Understanding WCAG 2.0 and in techniques
Common failures provided for each sc
We are currently not listing proprietary non-W3c technologies for complex
reasons.   

 

--------------- 


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions  <http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/>
http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

The Player for my DSS sound file is at  <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b>
http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>  

 

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

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