Fwd: Agenda for 5 June 2014 auto-WCAG call

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Hicks <jwjhix@gmail.com>
Date: 5 June 2014 11:49
Subject: Re: Agenda for 5 June 2014 auto-WCAG call
To: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>, public-auto-wcag@w3.org
Cc: Annika Nietzio <an@ftb-volmarstein.de>


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
>