W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2006

FW: FW: April 24 version UAAG-WCAG2.0 alignment

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:16:09 -0500
To: WAU-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Message-id: <HDEAKIPKOHBCMDILOOPNIEEOFOAB.jimallan@tsbvi.edu>

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Richards [mailto:jan.richards@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:56 AM
To: Jim Allan
Subject: Re: FW: April 24 version UAAG-WCAG2.0 alignment


Hi Jim (please post this to the group):

My comments in-line...

Jim Allan wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Christophe Strobbe
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:36 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Re: April 24 version UAAG-WCAG2.0 alignment
>
> At 20:43 24/04/2006, Jim Allan wrote:
>
>>http://www.tsbvi.edu/technology/uawg/wcag2b.html
>
> I have worked on the mapping between WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 [1] and I've been
> asked how the UAAG-WCAG2 correlation relates to the WCAG mapping.
> Here are some comments I have on your correlation table.
>
> WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1: would UAAG CP 6.6 be "shared"?

I don't think it's "shared" because if content doesn't have table
relationships etc marked up, the user agent can't easily fix these. I
think it is a "support" relationship because extensive markup won't help
if the user agent doesn't pass that along to assistive technologies.

> WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.3: I don't think that UAAG CP 4.1 and 4.2 map to this SC;
I
> would map them to WCAG GL 1.3. One way to fail WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.3 is having
> a stylesheet that positions the content in a way that changes the meaning
> of the content. I wonder if UAAG CP 4.14 correlates here somehow. I also
> don't see how UAAG CP 4.11 would correlate to this WCAG SC.

- I agree that 4.1, 4.2 and 4.11 don't fit here.
- Isn't mapping to WCAG guidelines problematic because they aren't
normative? If the group thinks this is ok, then yes 4.1 and 4.2 might
fit as "support WCAG" since I think the WCAG work implicitly assumes
these capabilities.
- Maybe 4.14 is more of an "extend WCAG" relationship.

> WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1: I also don't see how UAAG CP 10.2 would correlate to
> this WCAG SC; I think that this UAAG CP supports the second part of WCAG
> 2.0 SC 1.3.1 ("notification of changes...").

- I agree that 10.2 makes more sense with WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1.

> For WCAG 2.0 SC 2.1.1 there is a comment: "jr: 11.4 seems not to fit". If
> "single-key access" refers to UA functionality, I agree that there is no
> correlation.

- ok

> WCAG 2.0 SC 2.2.1: one way of meeting this SC is providing a mechanism to
> turn off the time out, so UAAG CP 3.5 seems to fit here. I don't think
that
> UAAG CP 5.1 fits here; I would correlate that to 3.2.1 (it already
> correlates to 3.2.2 in your table). I'm also not sure that that UAAG CP
> 11.5 fits here.

- re: 3.5, ok that works as "shared"
- re: 5.1 for WCAG 3.2.1: ok
- re: 11.5: ok

> WCAG 2.0 SC 2.2.2: UAAG CP 11.5: if blinking text fits the UAAG definition
> of animation, then the last bullet in #1 (the bullet that links to CP 4.5)
> correlates to this WCAG SC, but WCAG requires that the method to stop
> blinking is in the content. Does this mean that UAAG CP 11.5 extends WCAG
> 2.0 SC 2.2.2?

11.5 is just talking about making some UA functionality easier to use
(in this case the functionality is required by 4.5). Now since blinking
can be achieved via multimedia, let's add 4.5 to the list for 2.2.2 and
2.2.3.

> WCAG 2.0 - Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2: I'm also not sure
> that that UAAG CP 11.5 fits here. Possibly, UAAG CP 11.5 supports SC 2.2.5
> (cf. the UAAG CP 11.5 bullet point: "interrupt a request to load or reload
> a resource").

- I agree that 11.5 should not be here.
- Instead, 3.5 (Toggle automatic content retrieval) looks to go with 2.2.5

> WCAG 2.0 SC 2.5.1: I don't understand why UAAG CP 5.5 would fit with SC
> 2.5.2/2.5.3 but not with 2.5.1. I think UAAG CP 6.6 helps here, but I'm
not
> sure if it is required in all circumstances.

- 5.5 is about preventing forms from being sent prematurely - if
anything this is an "Extends WCAG"
- 6.6 just seems so much bigger than this checkpoint - I think it should
go under "in general" at the top as "Supports WCAG".

> WCAG 2.0 SC 2.5.1: I think UAAG CP 6.6 helps here, but I'm not sure if it
> is required in all circumstances.

- To me 6.5 doesn't seems not to fit here for the same reason as 6.6 - I
think it should go under "in general" at the top as "Supports WCAG".

> WCAG 2.0 SC 4.1.1: one way to fail this is using markup that results in
> inconsistent DOMs in user agents, so this seems to correlate to UAAG CP
6.2.

-Would that be an "Extend WCAG" relationship?

> I wonder if WCAG SC 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 correlate to UAAG CP 10.6, because if
> there is a change of viewport (which is included in the WCAG definition of
> change of context), it is important that the current viewport is
> highlighted.

- I guess that would also be an "Extend WCAG" relationship?


> Regards,
>
> Christophe Strobbe
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006AprJun/0080.html
>
>
> --
> 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
> http://www.docarch.be/
>
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
>

Cheers,
Jan

--
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 16:13:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:34 GMT