Re: Agenda for 5 June 2014 auto-WCAG call

Hello

I did contribute to the discussion but in spite of going through the
procedure I do not see my contribution on the list.

That is why I am reposting.

Did you have some feedback?

See you on Thursday (?)

John



On 5 June 2014 11:49, John Hicks <jwjhix@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bonjour again auto-wcag team,
> To make my suggestion clearer, here is the RGAA description of the  case
> that was being discussed in last week's call (1.4.1).   I hope that this
> can be useful to us.
>
> John
>
>
>
> 7.10 [Visual Presentation]10: Links are visually distinct from surrounding
> text
>
> Applies to:
>
> Any CSS selector targeting the 'a' element and any of following attributes:
>
> link
> alink
> vlink
> used on the body element.
>
> Test procedure
>
> If one of the elements listed in the domain of application is present in
> the page, continue the test; otherwise, the test is not applicable.
> If the element is used to style links, continue; otherwise, the test is
> not applicable.
> If the element does not allow the user to distinguish links only by color,
> continue; otherwise, the test is not applicable.
> If the contrast ratio between link-text color and the color of adjacent
> text is greater than or equal to 3 and provided another distinction other
> than color is available (bold face, underlining, icon, etc.), the test is
> successful; otherwise, it fails.
>
>
> On 5 June 2014 11:01, Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl> wrote:
>
>> Thanks John,
>>
>> I don't think it's on the list yet, W3C is monitoring the list manually
>> to prevent spam. It will get on the list soon I'm sure. Thanks for your
>> contribution. I did plan to talk about the subject, though it's more of a
>> side issue of several of the agenda points. Thank you very much for your
>> contribution!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Wilco
>> ________________________________________
>> Van: John Hicks [jwjhix@gmail.com]
>> Verzonden: donderdag 5 juni 2014 10:55
>> Aan: Wilco Fiers; Annika Nietzio
>> Onderwerp: Fwd: Agenda for 5 June 2014 auto-WCAG call
>>
>> Wilco
>> Very sorry to miss today's call.  Here is my contribution (though I see
>> it is not on the agenda for the day).
>> I mailed to the list, but not sure it went through (?)
>>
>> all the best
>> John
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: John Hicks <jwjhix@gmail.com<mailto:jwjhix@gmail.com>>
>> Date: 5 June 2014 10:40
>> Subject: Re: Agenda for 5 June 2014 auto-WCAG call
>> To: Annika Nietzio <an@ftb-volmarstein.de<mailto:an@ftb-volmarstein.de>>
>> Cc: public-auto-wcag@w3.org<mailto:public-auto-wcag@w3.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear WCAG-Auto Team
>>
>> First of all, I am sorry but I can not make the call this afternoon.
>>  Will Thursday afternoon be the regular time?  I can make arrangements for
>> the next ones, no problem, but this caught me off guard this time (even
>> though you mentioned it at the last meeting!).  Apologies.
>>
>> In terms of the assignment I took on, formalising the test criterion,
>> while remaining in natural language.
>>
>> I do believe I have exactly the solution we need for auto-wcag.
>>
>> My initial thought was "But that is what the WCAG is already...."   But I
>> think that is because last year I translated the RGAA from French to
>> English.  The RGAA is the French accessibility standard.   I went back to
>> look at WCAG success criteria and I admit it is not very concise in terms
>> of application.
>>
>> Question : am I missing something?  I was in the WCAG and looking at the
>> success criteria as described here (for example)
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G14
>>
>>
>> The actual specifics of the test are (to me) quite vague (by which I mean
>> you have to already have a good handle on the test to understand this page).
>>
>> Now, in the RGAA there are very precise test sequences which I believe
>> correspond to what you are looking for.  The problem is that the RGAA is
>> not just a version of the WCAG, and so the checkpoints don't all match up.
>>   But to make my point, you have  things like this :
>>
>>
>> *******************************************
>> 2.3 [Colors]3: Provision of a means of transmitting information other
>> than by color based on CSS styles
>>
>> Applies to:
>>
>> Any HTML element carrying a style that uses at least one of the following
>> CSS properties:
>>
>> color
>> background-color
>> background
>> border-color
>> border
>> outline-color
>> outline
>> Test procedure
>>
>> If one of the elements listed in the domain of application is present in
>> the page, continue the test; otherwise, the test is not applicable.
>> If the element bears information by means of color, continue; otherwise,
>> the test is not applicable.
>> If the information borne by the element is also transmitted by a means
>> other than color, the test is successful; otherwise, it fails.
>> *******************************************
>>
>> As you can see the selector is quite clear (somewhat large in this case,
>> admittedly).
>>
>> So my proposition would be to use the RGAA style (and even eventually use
>> the RGAA itself!).
>>
>> The complete document is here, in French :
>> http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/RGAA-v2.2_Annexe2-Tests.pdf
>>
>> Now, it might be that this same style of precise test exists already in
>> the WCAG, if it does, then that is what we want to use.  I couldn't find it
>> exactly though.   I think  Shadi might be able to help us here.  If it is
>> not there, then the RGAA could be the way to go.
>>
>> As I mentioned I already have the translation (it actually forms part of
>> the referential that was included in some of Urbilog's software).
>>
>> Again, very sorry to not be with you today, I will keep up with the
>> reunion notes.   I am free to take more actions, for example we could chose
>> 5-10 checkpoints and I could provide the RGAA tests for all of them and we
>> could see if that is what we want.  I think it might be!
>>
>> John
>>
>
>