Re: Agenda for 5 June 2014 auto-WCAG call

Very sorry!  I see my settings were off and the mails WERE transmitted!

I don't know if you can remove the duplicates.  Very sorry for the mistake.

john



On 10 June 2014 11:19, John Hicks <jwjhix@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>