W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: Consistency review assignments

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:45:16 +0100
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7261AC2A5F73904CA41773C8F00813FF221B26CC@EA-EXMSG-C309.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

Finally got round to looking at 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and found a few minor issues:

2.1.1 -

G90: Providing keyboard-controllable event handlers
The objective of this technique is to permit individuals who rely on a keyboard or keyboard interface to access the functionality of the content. To do this, make sure that all of the events used in scripts or other interactive controls on the page are associated with a keyboard-based event, or provide redundant keyboard-based mechanisms to accomplish the functionality provided by other device-specific functions.

I don't think this is quite right and also somewhat HTML/JS specific.

Propose:
G90: Providing keyboard-triggered event handlers
The objective of this technique is to permit individuals who rely on a keyboard or keyboard interface to access the functionality of the content. To do this, make sure that all event handlers triggered by non-keyboard UI events are also associated with a keyboard-based event, or provide redundant keyboard-based mechanisms to accomplish the functionality provided by other device-specific functions.


-------------
F10: Failure of SC 2.1.1 and Conformance Criterion 7 due to combining multiple content formats in a way that traps users inside one format type.

Firstly I don't think this is strictly a failure of 2.1.1; so suggest just making it a failure for CC#7.

Also:

"Some plug-ins create a common situation in which the keyboard focus can become "stuck" in inaccessible"
-- remove the word common, as we agreed on the telecom for another instance of this.

Also this failure does not speak to the required description of the method used in the conformance criterion.

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

2.1.2

On reading the description for this I became confused.

"This does not mean that analog, time-dependent input (excluded from the requirements of 2.1.1) must be made keyboard accessible. Rather, it means that content that uses analog, time-dependent input cannot conform to this success criterion and therefore cannot meet Guideline 2.1 at Level 3."

Firstly this text needs to be aligned with the new wording for 2.1.1

But secondly,
I'm not sure of the point of this SC at level 3. If content doesn't include the problem content, then level 2 is sufficient. If it does contain the problem content, then 3 can't be met. So 2 needs to be met with the exception. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me.


Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Corporate Accessibility Group
Microsoft
Phone:
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: 21 April 2007 15:17
To: WCAG
Subject: Re: Consistency review assignments


Just to clarify, the most recent versions of the Guidelines,
Understanding, and Techniques documents can be found at:

Guidelines:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
Understanding:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
Techniques: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/

They are subtitles "Editor's Draft February/March 2007".

Thanks, Loretta

On 4/20/07, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
> As we mentioned on Thursday, we need everyone's help in reviewing our
> documents for consistency. As we have changed out success criteria,
> the Understanding and Technique documents have not always tracked the
> changes.
>
> We've assigned the Guidelines and Success Criteria to different
> working group members. Please look at the success criterion, its
> Understanding document, and the techniques associated. Look for
> vocabulary changes (e.g. Web unit, baseline), techniques that need
> modification, etc.
>
> If issues are editorial,  email the suggested changes to Ben. If you
> find changes that are non-editorial and would require survey, please
> update the wiki to match the
> internal draft and then incorporate the proposed changes. This will
> make it easier for us to easily figure out what the changes are as well
> as simplify the process of creating surveys for the proposed changes.
>
> We would like this review done by next Friday, April 27. If you won't
> be able to do this, please let us know as soon as possible. Early
> submissions appreciated.
>
> Feel free to swap assignments among yourselves if you would like to
> work on something different.
>
> The assignments can also be found on the wiki page
> http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Consistency_Review#Working_Group_Member_Assignments
> .
> Please indicate the status of your work in the wiki.
>
> Thanks, Loretta
>
>     *  Andi Snow-Weaver (Just the GL Understanding docs) GL 1.1, GL
> 1.2, GL 1.3, GL 1.4, GL 2.1, GL 2.2, GL 2.3, GL 2.4, GL 3.1, GL 3.2,
> GL 3.3, GL 4.1
>     * Alex Li 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.6
>     * Bengt Farre 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4
>     * Bruce Bailey 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7
>     * Christophe Strobbe 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5
>     * Cynthia Shelley 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.5, 1.4.6
>     * Sean Hayes 2.1.1, 2.1.2
>     * David MacDonald 1.3.1
>     * Don Evans 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3
>     * Gregg Vanderheiden 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 2.3.1, 2.3.2
>     * Katie Haritos-Shea 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.2.5, 2.2.6
>     * Loretta Guarino Reid 1.1.1, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 2.4.9
>     * Makoto Ueki 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.6
>     * Sofia Celic 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.3.4, 3.3.5
>     * Tim Boland 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5
>     * Roberto Ellero 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.8
>
Received on Saturday, 12 May 2007 18:45:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:50 GMT