RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content

You can define the "set of documents" when you make your conformance claim
just as you do when you make a WCAG 2.0 conformance claim. If you make a
WCAG 2.0 conformance claim, you have to describe the pages for which you
are making the claim.

      A concise description of the Web pages, such as a list of URIs for
      which the claim is made, including whether subdomains are included in
      the claim.


      Note 1: The Web pages may be described by list or by an expression
      that describes all of the URIs included in the claim.


      Note 2: Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to
      installation on the customer's Web site may have a statement that the
      product would conform when installed.

Andi



From: Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>
To: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Gregg Vanderheiden
            <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, Peter Korn
            <peter.korn@oracle.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org"
            <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Date: 08/13/2012 09:32 AM
Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content



Although WCAG doesn’t mention website specifically, I think there is a
strong enough implication that this would be the commonly used reference
when talking about set of web pages. Also the term is used in  “Website
Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0”.

And if we are replacing “web page” with “document”, and if we rely on
subjective criteria for determining what a “set of documents” is, we will
end up with:

      1.       Authors, testers and users scratching their heads about what
      constitutes a “set of documents” and/or
      2.       Authors claiming that this SC doesn’t apply because their
      documents can be used independently.

Regards,
Kiran Kaja
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems Europe
+44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct)
80005 (Internal)
+44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile)
Kkaja@adobe.com
Twitter.com/kirankaja12

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV]
Sent: 13 August 2012 15:12
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Michael Pluke; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: Interaction Context + UI + Content

I will go back to the SC and associated materials again and walk through
from start to end, to ensure I’m not overlooking items we already address.
My impression for this 2.4.5 item is that behavior outside Web is slightly
different than inside Web because Web has an assumed linked set of pages
almost by definition, while this is not true outside that environment—but
can be in some cases.



From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Hoffman, Allen
Cc: Michael Pluke; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Interaction Context + UI + Content



On Aug 13, 2012, at 7:52 AM, "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
wrote:


I think the problem we are having with 2.4.5 for documents is that even
when we apply it it either requires authors to change the content itself,
or rely on outside functionality to provide alternatives.  What are the
analogs to the sufficient we provide in WCAG now which would be acceptable
outside the Web scoping?


It wouldn't require you to change the content if the content were already
met this provision. And why is it unusual that something that does not meet
the criteria would have to change in order to meet it. This is true for
webpages as well. What am I missing?