- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:31:52 -0500
- To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Do we have sufficient rationale/explanation for closing the issues that are recommended to be closed? I'm a tiny bit concerned that issues are being closed just for the sake of keeping to a time schedule? If issues are being closed because they cannot be addressed in this version of WCAG, can they be reopened for a future version? Can issues be "postponed" to a future version when more information/experience on them is available? Just a general feeling of mine.. Michael, thanks for the great work in these recommendations! Happy new year to everyone, Tim Boland NIST At 01:21 PM 1/4/2006 -0500, you wrote: >I took on myself the task of doing an issue summary of normative issues >for guideline 2.1 <http://tinyurl.com/ae39v>. Please comment on these on >the Team C list. Sorry this doesn't give much notice before the group >call tomorrow, but that's the timing I could manage. > >561. Divvying up responsibility for keyboard access ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=561> > >This issue asks to what extent keyboard accessibility is an authoring >responsibility versus a user agent responsibility. The final comment >mentions that the baseline impacts this. > >Proposal: CLOSE > >Regardless of where the responsibility lies, or whether applicable >technologies execute their responsibilities properly, the functional >requirement in WCAG 2.0 is that keyboard access must exist. Techniques >may provide guidance about ensuring this requirement is met, but the >responsibility does not affect the normative requirement. > >941. Format notes in Level 1 SC as a list ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=941> > >Formatting request. > >Proposal: LEAVE OPEN and address when formatting of guidelines is >cleaned up. > >986. prefer 1.0 approach: "device-independence" is more strict ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=986> > >This questions the move from "device independence" to "keyboard access". >There are reasons to be more concrete about keyboard access, but there >is a proposal to include the more generic device independence at Level >2. > >Proposal: CLOSE with no action. I think this might draw concern but do >not have a proposal to make that I think would draw less concern. > >1015. If the browser doesn't support tabbing, what is the author to do? ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1015> > >Asks how to meet this guideline if the user agent does not support >keyboard navigation between links and form controls. > >I think this is similar to issue 561 above, it's a functional >requirement that must be met regardless of user agent or technology >issues. > >Proposal: CLOSE with the above rationale. > >1378. Difference between 'operable' and 'is designed to be operated' ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1378> > >2.1.1 uses "operable" while 2.1.2 uses "designed to be operated". The >question is if there is a difference, and if so, what. > >I believe there is indeed a difference between those terms. There is >debate about whether there is a call for the second term, but I think >only the first term should be used. Content that was designed to be >operated with the keyboard, but not actually operable, would not provide >the accessibility we're looking for. > >Proposal: CLOSE with the above rationale and reword 2.1.2 as suggested >by Becky: "All functionality of the content is operable through a >keyboard interface." > >1621. 2.1 L3 SC1 fold into 2.1 L1 SC1 ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1621> > >Greg Lowney raised concerns about "described in a sentence" for 2.1.1. >He proposed modifying the SC to remove the conditions, which is >essentially promoting 2.1.2 to replace 2.1.1. > >The concerns were accepted and the success criteria modified, but not >all conditions were removed from it. Therefore 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are still >distinct and this issue is, in a sense, overcome by events. > >Proposal: CLOSE with no action. > >1700. Usability issues in keyboard access ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1700> > >Raises point that keyboard access isn't helpful if tab order makes it >effectively unusable. > >I believe this is covered by 2.4.7 <http://tinyurl.com/9sfb4> and 3.1.6 ><http://tinyurl.com/9l5kc>. > >Proposal: CLOSE with no action. > >1738. GL 2.1 Guideline should promote device independence ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1738> > >This asks about changing device independence to keyboard access. > >Proposal: MARK AS DUPLICATE of issue 986 (see above) and handle in that >context. > >1740. GL 2.1 L3 SC 1 should be Level 2 ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1740> > >Suggests moving 2.1.2 (keyboard access, no exceptions) from Level 3 to >Level 2. > >I believe in discussions people have been able to think of situations >where keyboard access cannot be provided on Level 2 sites, because of >timing issues (exception-less timing issues are also Level 3). Therefore >this is a Level 3 issue that not all sites will be able to meet, though >hopefully most will. > >Proposal: CLOSE with no action. > >1804. SC 2.2.1 hard to understand ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1804> > >Expresses concern that people will not know what the phrase "where the >task >requires analog, time-dependent input" means. > >I agree with the issue but do not have a proposal to make myself. > >Proposal: KEEP OPEN and ask reviewer to suggest wording. > >1829. Problems with access keys ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1829> > >Raises the browser conflicts issue with access keys. > >This is a well known and important issue, but it is squarely a user >agent issue. Also, currently so "sufficient" techniques call for access >keys. > >Proposal: RECATEGORIZE issue as non-normative. Suggest when / if we ever >get to it in its new category, advisory information be added to the >appropriate technique. > >1836. GL 2.1: use "textual interface" rather than "keyboard interface" ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1836> > >Proposes using a term "textual interface" instead of "keyboard >interface" for consistency with other W3C groups and be more device >independent. > >I can see merit to the proposal, though I'd be concerned that "textual >interface" will be harder for people to understand and to define >properly. Nevertheless if other W3C groups are using the term, we >should. However, the comment does not provide info about which groups >use the term or how. A quick search of the W3C site ><http://tinyurl.com/9tx6n> does not yield promising results. > >Proposal: KEEP OPEN and ask reviewer for substantiation. If we do not >receive it in an appropriate amount of time, CLOSE issue with no action, >otherwise consider the merits at that time. > >1837. SC 2.1.1: Issues with time-dependency aspects and exception ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1837> > >This says the inclusion of time-independence in the requirement is >redundant with success criterion 1.2.2 yet as written it removes the >requirement completely for any time-dependent activity. > >To be honest, I don't understand this comment at all. I don't see the >relationship with 1.2.2, nor understand the benefit of removing the time >dependency exception. Considering that benefit has been carefully >considered by the working group, I would be cautious about proposing to >remove it. I therefore have to propose no action, and someone can make >an alternate proposal if they want. > >Proposal: CLOSE this issue with no action. > >1838. SC 2.1.1, Benefits in Understanding WCAG ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1838> > >Makes two points: > >1. Having a cut/paste model is a technique, not a benefit. >2. Also benefits users whose motor control is not sufficient to use a >pointer device effectively. > >These make sense, though it took quite a bit of thinking to understand >the first one. > >Proposal: CLOSE this issue, proposing a placeholder optional technique >for the first suggestion, and adding a benefit for the second >suggestion. > >1873. MouseKeys note ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1873> > >Says the note about MouseKeys, which is a specific technology, should be >moved to a non-normative document. > >I'm inclined to agree with this, but I suspect a note to this effect >does need to be in the normative document. I think we should instead >generalize the language. Rewording for the note could be "It is not >possible to conform to this success criterion by expecting users to use >keyboard-operated mouse simulation software." > >Proposal: CLOSE issue, making above change to the note. > >1874. Add "non time-dependent manner" to 2.1.2 ><http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1874> > >Asks if the Level 3 criterion should also include a statement about >operable in a non time-dependent manner, as the Level 1 criterion does, >in order that the Level 3 one not be weaker. > >I'm guessing this would meet the desire to have the Level 3 SC as >similar as possible to the Level 1, without the exception. > >Proposal: CLOSE this issue, adding "...in a non time-dependent >manner..." to 2.1.2. > >--- Signature --- > >Michael Cooper >Accessibility Product Manager, Watchfire >1 Hines Rd Suite 200, Kanata, ON K2K 3C7 Canada >Tel: +1 (613) 599-3888 x4019 >Fax: +1 (613) 599-4661 >Email: michaelc@watchfire.com >Web: http://www.watchfire.com/
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 16:33:07 UTC