- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:30:31 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FE0EF77.6020101@oracle.com>
Gregg, If I have a window open, but it isn't the front most window, what are two ways I can navigate to it in Windows? I can use ALT-TAB to get to it, that's one. Or I can launch my screen reader and get a list of open windows and navigate to it that way. BUT... that requires that I have a specific 3rd party AT installed in order to do it - which I believe means that is not a valid way to meet the SC (which is what I meant when I said that "AT can't be used to meet an SC"). Peter On 6/19/2012 1:39 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > Peter > Something like 2/5th of WCAG is about AT being used to meet the SC. > > What do you mean WCAG doesn’t allow AT to be used to meet the SC? I'm > not sure what you are getting at. > > > RE two ways to navigate to a dialog box --- do you mean two ways to > invoke it? > One would be via help text I would image. A menu is another way. > Button on tool bars can invoke them. > > Got particular menu in mind? (if it is part of a process it is > excepted by the way) > > > > /Gregg/ > -------------------------------------------------------- > Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. > Director Trace R&D Center > Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering > and Biomedical Engineering > University of Wisconsin-Madison > > Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International > and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project > http://Raisingthefloor.org --- http://GPII.net > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Peter Korn wrote: > >> Hi Allen, >> >> That's not quite what I'm saying... Use of AT could be part of >> satisfying a variety of things in 508, but I don't believe they can >> ever be part of satisfying a WCAG SC. And therefore, we need to be >> able to support "multiple ways" (if we in fact bring that over to >> non-web ICT) directly, without one of the multiple being that an AT >> is doing it for the ICT (or in conjunction with the ICT). >> >> And I have asked Gregg to describe at least two ways in which a >> software application, without using external AT, might allow a user >> to navigate to a dialog box among a collection of windows. ALT-TAB >> is one way. What is the other? >> >> >> Peter >> >> >> On 6/19/2012 9:19 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote: >>> >>> I follow Peter’s description in this thread but not Gregg’s. >>> >>> If I read Peter’s correctly: >>> >>> Use of AT to get at something could serve as a sufficient technique >>> for the multiple ways SC, but currently WCAG does not offer this as >>> a solution. >>> >>> Gregg wrote: >>> >>> Complying, however, isn't any more difficult than ensuring that all >>> these combinations work or that an API can work. For example, how >>> do you ensure you can jump over the ribbons when there are so many >>> different ICs that would include the ribbon. >>> >>> You just make ribbons be implemented in a standard way that allows >>> you to treat is as an object you can jump over or past. Then >>> there can be any number of different ribbons with different content >>> and they will all comply -- not because you checked each one - >>> one-by-one -but because that is they was they are all implemented. >>> >>> Huh? >>> >>> I’m not following along here. >>> >>> Regarding interaction context, the phrase “active focus” or “active >>> interface element” comes to mind when I think outside a Web >>> environment.I don’t extend such context to things a user isn’t >>> working with, but may work with.For example, while there are ribbons >>> which I can navigate in various sequences, they don’t imply >>> interdependent to me, but maybe if they are viewed from a >>> touchscreen perspective they do?I really want to stress my hope that >>> we can provide readers some clearer sense of why a WCAG guideline >>> applies outside Web, where differences are when doing so, and when >>> possible, what kinds of things are known to have high degree of >>> success in meeting the guideline.I know, some of this is beyond the >>> intended scoping, but is what is needed never the less. >>> >>> Also, just a thought, maybe we should just toss out voice >>> interactive systems as covered under this expanded scoping as they >>> present so many conceptual challenges for applicability.I think >>> clear guidelines for something like interactive natural language >>> human interfaces is needed, rather than attempting to imply >>> graphical Web interface guidelines to such a radically divergent >>> interface.I question validity of such applicability, and I’m one who >>> loves such interfaces. >>> >>> e >>> >>> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:52 AM >>> *To:* Peter Korn >>> *Cc:* Hoffman, Allen; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org >>> *Subject:* Re: Interaction Context >>> >>> I understand what you mean. >>> >>> But that is the nature of software. That is the way it is designed. >>> >>> Don't see as we have any choice. >>> >>> Complying, however, isn't any more difficult than ensuring that >>> all these combinations work or that an API can work. For example, >>> how do you ensure you can jump over the ribbons when there are so >>> many different ICs that would include the ribbon. >>> >>> You just make ribbons be implemented in a standard way that allows >>> you to treat is as an object you can jump over or past. Then >>> there can be any number of different ribbons with different content >>> and they will all comply -- not because you checked each one - >>> one-by-one -but because that is they was they are all implemented. >>> >>> etc. >>> >>> Same way APIs can work - even though you can't test them with every >>> possible part of every program in every possible state and data etc. >>> >>> /Gregg/ >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. >>> Director Trace R&D Center >>> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering >>> and Biomedical Engineering >>> University of Wisconsin-Madison >>> >>> >>> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International >>> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project >>> http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://Raisingthefloor.org/> --- >>> http://GPII.net <http://GPII.net/> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Peter Korn wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Allen, >>> >>> My point is that WCAG doesn't say "you may meet SC x through the use >>> of AT", whereas 508 does (and M376 may). Therefore if we have a >>> requirement that something can be done "in multiple ways", and the >>> only way to get a 2nd (or 3rd) way (to reach "multiple") is by using >>> AT, then in wouldn't actually be possible for the ICT to meet the >>> provision (on its own). >>> >>> Make sense? >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> On 6/19/2012 5:27 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote: >>> >>> Peter you wrote: >>> >>> … >>> >>> And again - and perhaps more importantly - WHAT DOES THIS MEAN in >>> practice? What are the actual, multiple ways for the ICT itself to >>> provide these multiple ways. Note: unlike 508/M376, we cannot "meet >>> the SC directly or through the use of supported AT" - that's not a >>> WCAG concept. So these multiple ways must be directly provided by >>> the software, or the software fails the SC. >>> … >>> >>> Can you elaborate for me? >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] >>> *Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 8:30 PM >>> *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden >>> *Cc:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: Interaction Context >>> >>> Gregg, >>> >>> I'm going to cut-and-paste a bit out of order, to hopefully help >>> focus the conversation on a few key issues. >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> >>> *What is an IC* >>> >>> * a modal dialog box (with or without a title) all by itself >>> * a nonmodal dialog (with or without a title) along with anything >>> else outside of that dialog that belongs to the same application >>> (or it could be a suit) (same 'author) that a user can >>> directly interact with (e.g. ONLY those parts of the menu bar on >>> the top of the screen of a Macintosh that the author intends to >>> work with their program. Other things added by the user are not >>> part of the context for the application (though they are for the >>> user) >>> ... >>> >>> >>> and later you wrote in response to me: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm also troubled by your 3rd bullet. As I read it, if I have 4 >>> windows open - two Writer documents, a Calc spreadsheet, and an >>> Impress slide presentation - they would all be the same IC >>> because they are all part of the OpenOffice suite and therefore >>> the same "author". That doesn't make sense to me. It also >>> breaks down for me 2.4.1 below (which I'll discuss in more >>> detail there). >>> >>> IF they are designed to all work together -- and you can navigate >>> among them -- and they are intended to work as one -- then yes. >>> If they are just miscellaneous programs from the same company - then >>> they are not the same context. >>> >>> >>> and yet later: >>> >>> >>> Grin. I has to do with how they are viewed and work together. >>> Remember that a single application presents MANY DIFFERENT ICs from >>> one moment to the next. So All the apps can be one IC one moment >>> and yet different ICs at another. >>> >>> the key word is CONTEXT not application. You change context >>> within an app. And your context of operation at any point in time >>> includes the app and the OS. >>> >>> >>> and finally getting to 2.4.5, in response to me, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> **"2.4.5 Multiple Ways:** More than one way is available to >>> locate a */dialog box/* within a*/set of windows all belonging >>> to the same application /*except where the Web Page is the >>> result of, or a step in, a process >>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#processdef>. (Level AA)" >>> >>> ????? dialog boxes are not ICS -- so I wouldn’t expect this to make >>> sense. >>> >>> I don't understand your substitutions. Hence I'm not surprised the >>> sentences don't computer. >>> >>> this reads >>> >>> **"2.4.5 Multiple Ways:** More than one way is available to >>> locate a */IC/* within a*/ set of ICs /*except where the IC is >>> the result of, or a step in, a process >>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#processdef>. (Level AA)" >>> >>> >>> So a "modal dialog box" is an IC - perhaps all of the time (or >>> nearly all of the time?). And sometimes a single application with >>> multiple windows is multiple ICs, and other times a single >>> application with multiple windows is a single IC. But in any case, >>> a "set of web pages" (I mean "set of ICs") must always be from the >>> same author to be within the set, so I guess "set of ICs" must >>> always be a set of windows/dialog boxes/etc. from the same >>> application or application suite, else they aren't in the same set. >>> >>> So, scratching my head a bit about 2.4.5... I come to the following >>> specific recasting (remember, getting specific like this is a way to >>> test the definition - if you cannot substitute the definition for >>> the term, then the definition fails): >>> >>> **"2.4.5 Multiple Ways:** More than one way is available to locate a >>> */modal dialog box/*within a*/set of windows/dialog boxes/... all >>> belonging to the same application or suite of applications, from the >>> same author /*except where the Web Page is the result of, or a step >>> in, a process <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#processdef>. (Level AA)" >>> >>> How does that text above NOT flow from your proposed definitions of >>> these terms? >>> >>> And again - and perhaps more importantly - WHAT DOES THIS MEAN in >>> practice? What are the actual, multiple ways for the ICT itself to >>> provide these multiple ways. Note: unlike 508/M376, we cannot "meet >>> the SC directly or through the use of supported AT" - that's not a >>> WCAG concept. So these multiple ways must be directly provided by >>> the software, or the software fails the SC. >>> >>> More generally - would */you /*please do as I have done, and give at >>> least one concrete WIMP GUI example of a single IC within a set of >>> ICs and describe the multiple ways of locating that single IC within >>> that set of ICs? Because I'm just not seeing it... >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, on to some other parts of our discussion... >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>> How do we determine whether the author is the same or not? >>> >>> IF the product is a microsoft product then Microsoft is the >>> 'author". Note that is says author ... organization. >>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm also troubled by your 3rd bullet. As I read it, if I have 4 >>> windows open - two Writer documents, a Calc spreadsheet, and an >>> Impress slide presentation - they would all be the same IC >>> because they are all part of the OpenOffice suite and therefore >>> the same "author". That doesn't make sense to me. It also >>> breaks down for me 2.4.1 below (which I'll discuss in more >>> detail there). >>> >>> IF they are designed to all work together -- and you can navigate >>> among them -- and they are intended to work as one -- then yes. >>> If they are just miscellaneous programs from the same company - then >>> they are not the same context. >>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>> Remember that a single application presents MANY DIFFERENT ICs from >>> one moment to the next. So All the apps can be one IC one moment >>> and yet different ICs at another. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't think this is tenable without a more clear rule. It isn't >>> objectively testable. How do we say when a collection of apps >>> designed to work well together but also available separately is >>> "miscellaneous programs from the same company" or not? If sold >>> separately they are each their own IC, but when available together >>> they loose there separate identities and become part of a larger >>> shared IC? And your final two sentences above are also not at all >>> testable. How can we evaluate provisions that speak to multiple ICs >>> (or a "set of ICs") when sometimes this collection of things is a >>> single IC and other times it is multiple ICs? How do we when when >>> it is one and when it is the other? (like a photon, sometimes a >>> particle, sometimes a wave? and sometimes oth at the same time? >>> but sometimes a particle among a set of waves...??? - quantum >>> electrodynamics isn't my strong suit) >>> >>> >>> >>> Next topic: >>> >>> >>> And even if I am mistaken, in a variety of UNIX graphical >>> environments that is the case - there are a number of different >>> apps that may appear to be "the desktop" - certainly different >>> programming groups may have authored them. >>> >>> Right - and if the authors intend them to all work as one IC they >>> are. Authors intent. >>> >>> >>> At some point we are going to also have to deal with conformance to >>> WCAG in the context of non-web ICT. A major part of how WCAG >>> conformance is playing out in the world is through evaluation not >>> just by the author. Also by the user or purchaser (or a third >>> party). If "author intent" plays a role in how to give meaning to >>> the terms we use in the context of software, then we have a large >>> potential train wreck ahead of us as folks other than authors >>> attempt to assess whether WCAG is met or not by software ICT. >>> >>> >>> >>> Next topic: >>> >>> >>> I also, frankly, question whether 2.4.2 needs to apply to all >>> ICs in the software world - precisely because much of the Intent >>> is addressable without needing to have a visible text title (and >>> the Dock's title isn't visible, just spoken via AT). >>> >>> You are defining IC as being bits of IC's so you get a dead >>> end-which you should. >>> >>> >>> Actually, I was caught up in a different way. I was caught up in >>> the notion that the title should be visible. If we addressed 2.4.2 >>> with a Note making clear that the title doesn't have to be visually >>> rendered on the screen by the ICT, then I think we solve the example >>> scenarios I was bringing up. I've added this to DISCUSSION POINTS >>> for 2.4.2: >>> >>> Note: the title doesn't have to be made visible on the the screen in >>> order to satisfy this Criterion, so long as it is programmatically >>> determinable and available to AT. >>> >>> >>> Next topic: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> [Also, we may need to reconcile that a web browser is software, >>> yet by this definition both a portion of the web browser window >>> - the web page - and the entire window, are both an "interaction >>> context". Is that a problem?] >>> >>> The web browser is a context by itself -- but the browser is not >>> responsible for the content. >>> >>> The content Plus the browser is a context to the page author - at >>> least for the browsers the authors intend their page to work with. >>> >>> >>> Hmmm... So really any sort of "software player" would be presenting >>> 2 ICs: one for the player "chrome", and a second for the "player >>> content". E.g. a Flash application, or Java applet, or... running >>> within a web page is an IC separate from the hosting application (or >>> to use W3C terminology, the User Agent). That certainly is in >>> keeping with the "author" notion. >>> >>> I think I follow you here. But remember that the author of the >>> "content" includes the player in their IC. >>> >>> >>> Sorry, you've lost me here. In the web context, we don't hold web >>> page authors responsible for the accessibility of the user agent. >>> If the IC of a Java applet includes the Java runtime, and the IC of >>> the Flash app includes the Flash player, and the IC of the PDF >>> document includes Adobe Reader (or some other PDF viewer)... then >>> you are making authors responsible for something they cannot control. >>> >>> Why should web authors not be responsible for accessibility of the >>> web browser but authors of highly interactive PDF documents (so they >>> aren't simple electronic content) be responsible for one of several >>> PDF viewers on the market? If they are the same IC, then it seems >>> to me the responsibility issue follows from that (as a WCAG in the >>> software context conformance assessment would get made on the entire >>> IC). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>> * My feeling is that "interaction context" is a poor >>> substitute for web page" in 2.4.2 - as it also is with >>> 2.4.1. This SC is an "irregular verb" that we just need >>> to deal with separately, relying more on the Intent >>> language. >>> >>> Seems to fit to me. >>> >>> >>> I only see a possible fit here, and only for the first of the >>> multiple sentences in the Intent, and by doing so in a way that >>> goes beyond what is strictly necessary in the more varied world >>> of software UIs generally. >>> >>> I think SC is still better served by treating it a (slightly) >>> irregular verb. >>> >>> Sorry -- I don't understand either sentence. Nor what you mean by a >>> sentence being an irregular verb. If you mean that the term doesn’t >>> work here -- I still don't see why. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I'm now comfortable with 2.4.2, now that I realize the title >>> doesn't have to be visible on the screen, I think the 'irregular >>> verb' and related discussions for 2.4.2 are "overtaken by events". >>> >>> >>> And finally to a larger concept: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyway... my point in this discussion isn't to try to wrestle a >>> whole bunch of provisions all at once, but to see if as a group we >>> have rough consensus that: >>> >>> * there is a workable notion - precise definition TBD - that works >>> in a lot of places >>> * there are some places (my "irregular verbs") where a straight >>> substitution doesn't work; so we should some up with a term that >>> does work in the "lots of places" and use it there, but not try >>> to twist either the term or the fitting in order to insist it be >>> used everywhere - (in other words, let our world have a few >>> irregular verbs) >>> >>> It sounds to me Gregg that you want to keep pushing for a world free >>> of exceptions. Or maybe it is just that you don't see the >>> exceptions where I see them. >>> >>> Don't know where you get that... I don't agree we should have a >>> world free of exceptions. WCAG is full of them. ANd I endorse a >>> bunch of global exceptions in 508. But we have no authority to >>> create any new exceptions in WCAG or 508. So I'm not sure where >>> the topic comes from. >>> >>> >>> The 'exception' notion is this: specific SCs for which our mapping >>> of "web page" to "IC" doesn't (quite) work are "exceptions" to *our* >>> mapping rule of "web page" to "IC". For those exceptions we have >>> more work to do in our mapping of the SC to the non-web ICT world. >>> >>> Make sense now? >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> >>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal >>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> >>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 >>> <Mail Attachment.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is >>> committed to developing practices and products that help protect the >>> environment >>> >>> -- >>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> >>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal >>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> >>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 >>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> >>> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help >>> protect the environment >>> >> >> -- >> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/> >> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal >> Phone: +1 650 506 9522 <tel:+1%20650%20506%209522> >> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group >> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be >> sure to use: peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle >> is committed to developing practices and products that help protect >> the environment > -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal Phone: +1 650 506 9522 <tel:+1%20650%20506%209522> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be sure to use: peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:31:23 UTC