- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:05:54 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5087F5C2.2060609@oracle.com>
Gregg,
I'm sorry, but this proposal doesn't (yet) work for me.
The proposal does not:
* clearly define what constitutes "linking" between software to create
a set
* define for 3.2.3 what a navigation mechanism is for software
* incorporate any of the necessary thinking for 2.4.5 (which we have
been developing) for what "locating a [software]" means
* incorporate any of the necessary thinking for 2.4.1 (which we have
been developing) for what "bypassing a block" of content means in
software -> e.g. focus vs...
Furthermore, in the meeting I believe several of us asked for a positive
example of a set in software. As far as I'm concerned, this can be a
constructed example - it doesn't have to be one in real life. But I am
not comfortable saying that these are "...never ordinarily be included
in a set of software requirements..." without making clear the situation
in which it/they would be included. If the are never included - period
- then we should state that. If there is some rare situation in which
one/all should be included, we should clearly describe that situation.
Finally, I am not prepared to say "ALso we did not find that WCAG
applied this within a web page or single unit web app (at a single URI)
so we didn’t feel we could apply it within software". I am not
convinced it is fundamentally wrong to look at some of these where the
"set" is "software", and that is a discussion I maintain we should have
with WCAG. Last Friday I put together a page with a first draft trying
to gather together the issues we saw with these three remaining SCs and
three approaches we were mulling over - but hasn't yet reached consensus
on any - as the basis for such a discussion (see
https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/remaining-3-scs).
I had expected to work on this with you, but instead you are focusing on
a specific proposal (essentially one of the three approaches), and I'm
not seeing any specific critiques otherwise of that text.
Regards,
Peter
On 10/24/2012 1:10 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> *
> *
> *
> *
> Here area the ones left
> ============================================================
>
> * 2.4.1: Bypass Blocks (Level A)*
>
> A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are
> repeated on multiple Web pages.
>
> [agreement for non-embedded content]
>
>
> *2.4.5: Multiple Ways (Level AA)*
>
> More than one way is available to locate a Web page within
> a set of Web pages except where the Web Page is the result of,
> or a step in, a process.
>
>
> *3.2.3: Consistent Navigation (Level AA)*
>
> Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web
> pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative
> order each time they are repeated, unless a change
> is initiated by the user.
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> SUGGEST THAT WE DO THE FOLLOWING
>
> In *_all three cases_* we
>
> 1) Say "*applies as written etc. * replacing *web page(s)* with *NWNE
> Content and Software "*
> *
> *
> *2) add the following two notes to each*
>
> *NOTE 1: *Because content this is not on a web is not as easily
> defined as a set by its location, the WCAG2ICT TF found that a clearer
> definition of what constituted a set was needed for Non-web content
> and software. The following definition of SET was adopted because it
> provided a clear indication (by virtual of the bi-directional
> linkages) that they items were indeed meant to work together as a set
> and not just be a collection.
>
> NOTE 2: For software the WCAG2ICT TF found that this provision can be
> applied to software but such sets of software are rare, and most would
> meet this success criterion automatically by their natural design.
> So this provision would never ordinarily be included in a set of
> software requirements because of it rarity and the fact that it is not
> much of a problem for software so the provision would not be of much
> value.
> ALso we did not find that WCAG applied this within a web page or
> single unit web app (at a single URI) so we didn’t feel we could apply
> it within software. But we do recognize the utility of applying this
> general concept in different ways to parts of software. WCAG would
> not require it, but it would be good practice consider the general
> concept when designing software.
>
> *3) *refer to our definition a definition of Set as follows
> *SET (of NWNE Content or Software)*
>
> *group of items that are linked bidirectionally to each other
> via h,yperlinks or a menu of links that move you between the
> items in the group.*
>
>
>
> *Comments welcome*
> (some tweaking may be needed between SC)
>
>
> *========================*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *Background - for reference*
>
> * *23* success criteria *"This [success criterion] applies
> directly as written, and as described in INTENT
> from Understanding WCAG 2.0' *
>
> * *8* success criteria * "*This [* success criterion] applies
> directly as written, and as described in INTENT
> from Understanding WCAG 2.0 *
> replacing "*Web page(s)*", "*Each Web page*", "*Content*" or "*Web
> content*" with "*Non-embeded Content and Software"
>
> *
> * *4* success criterion * "*This [*success criterion] applies
> directly as written, and as described in INTENT
> from Understanding WCAG 2.0 *
> had individual substitutions
> o (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence)
> + replacing "*Content*", with "*Non-**Web content*"
> o (1.4.2 Audio Control)
> + replacing “*a Web page”* with “ *in non-embedded
> content or software*” and *“any content*” with “*any part
> of non-embedded content or software*
> o (3.2.4 Consistent Identification)
> + replacing “*a set of Web pages*” with "*non-embedded
> content or software”*
> o (4.1.1 Parsing)
> + replacing* “In content implemented using markup languages”
> *with* “For software and non-embedded content that use
> markup languages, in such a way that the markup is
> separately exposed and available to assistive technology
> (AT) or to a user-selectable user agent".*
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
> /Gregg/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International -
> http://Raisingthefloor.org
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net
>
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 14:06:49 UTC