W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > October 2017

implementation requirements for WCAG - Can you help

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:40:44 +0300
To: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15f4f402188.c61fa87760124.4423401397929116320@zoho.com>
Please read this email below about what we need to do to keep our SC into WCAG. (implementation requirements for WCAG)Can you help with any of these items such as a conforming website or ATAll the best...lisa
-----------Steve wrote: Each technique we add to meet a 2.1 criteria is shown in documentation to be accessibility supported where applicable And the “where applicable” is significant here. I think that the ones that we will really need to review are the ones indicated below. We don’t need to document accessibility support for SC that are up to the author (e.g. Target size) or that we’ve already demonstrated the viability of for WCAG 2.0 (e.g. Label in name). So I think what we need to do is: 1. For each accepted SC, identify techniques 2. For the indicated SC below, test and document support using two technologies with at least 4 combinations of platform/user agent/AT. This will mean that there are ~10 SC that we need to provide this information for, and would make the exit criteria: 1. At least 5 conforming Web sites 1&lt;https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FCR-WCAG20-20080430%2F%23statusnote1&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&amp;sdata=N3mbVOZFXC72ujK%2FArmJg8qt3q%2BitEzTkpTHh2EMrtY%3D&amp;reserved=0&gt; are available, of which * At least four conform at level AA, * At least one conforms at level AAA; 1. At least two implementations 2&lt;https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FCR-WCAG20-20080430%2F%23statusnote2&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&amp;sdata=8fZU3e7QJVbixs%2BgjGigFr3RmKpKzLZCr5di170j%2BEk%3D&amp;reserved=0&gt; exist for each success criterion added in WCAG 2.1 (Success Criteria from WCAG 2.0 do not need new implementations); 2. Accessibility support documentation 3&lt;https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FCR-WCAG20-20080430%2F%23statusnote3&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&amp;sdata=NYSFSVzRvgNj77I1qYrzWsj2vtzZfS7KJqQtGtCXAOY%3D&amp;reserved=0&gt; for SC with platform/user agent/assistive technology dependencies is available for at least two technologies with at least four platforms (operating system/user agent/assistive technology combinations); 3. All sufficient techniques listed in Understanding WCAG 2.0&lt;https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2FWCAG20%2FWD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cac5470dbb65345043a9108d5125801b6%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636435091549920194&amp;sdata=BnfrQW9ro357ALDKJwM3l9F31u1LHUyciI07cxFvQMU%3D&amp;reserved=0&gt; at the end of the Candidate Recommendation period contain test procedures; 4. The Working Group has responded formally to all issues raised against this document related to any implementation efforts during the Candidate Recommendation period. 1.3.4 Purpose of Controls – covered by existing ASD 1.3.5 Contextual Information – need to review techniques for browser support 1.4.10 Zoom Content – need to review techniques for browser support 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast – up to author 1.4.12 User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum) - up to author 1.4.13 Adapting Text – need to review techniques for browser support 1.4.14 Content on Hover or Focus – need to review techniques for browser support 2.2.6 Accessible Authentication – up to author 2.2.7 Interruptions – up to author 2.2.8 Timeouts – up to author 2.2.9 Animation from Interactions - up to author 2.4.11 Character Key Shortcuts – up to author 2.4.12 Label in Name – covered by existing ASD 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures – need to review techniques for browser support 2.5.2 Concurrent Input Mechanisms – need to review techniques for browser support 2.5.3 Target Size - up to author 2.5.4 Target Size (No Exceptions) - up to author 2.6.1 Device Sensors – need to review techniques for browser support 2.6.2 Orientation – need to review techniques for browser support 3.2.6 Accidental Activation – need to review techniques for browser support 3.2.7 Change of Content – need to review techniques for browser support From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:51 PM To: Repsher, Stephen J &lt;stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com&lt;mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com&gt;&gt;; WCAG &lt;w3c-wai-gl@w3.org&lt;mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org&gt;&gt; Subject: Re: Update on Candidate Recommendation Exit Criteria Steve, I don’t think that I would say that the accessibility support documentation is tied to techniques. In HTML we pointed to techniques frequently, and we should have techniques that represent the full spectrum of ways that a technology is supported by assistive technologies, but it isn’t required for anyone to make a WCAG 2.1 conformance claim. The support documentation is useful for authors to be able to refer to if they are trying to see what works across different platforms, but as we also see from the documentation it gets out of date and people probably aren’t using it on any kind of regular basis. I think that it would be great to have accessibility support documentation for technologies like HTML5 as there are new elements that didn’t exist with HTML 4.01, but I don’t think that this impact WCAG 2.1 SC as much as it does WCAG 2.0 SC and as a result I think that this shouldn’t be part of the official exit criteria. For Steve or anyone who feels that we do need this, can you articulate what the scenario might be where there is a negative outcome caused by not having it? Thanks, AWK Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:41:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:59 UTC