Re: Proposal for the last three items

Hi Peter 

Thanks for the feedback.   Just trying to find a path through that addresses all the concerns.  Any help is appreciated to make it better.

See comments and questions below marked GV: 
 

On Oct 24, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:

> 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
GV:  Can you explain more about what you mean?  The proposed text seems to say very specifically what linking means.   
to quote the definition:
>> "...that are linked bidirectionally to each other via hyperlinks or a menu of links that move you between the items in the group"
Can you explain your question better?.



> define for 3.2.3 what a navigation mechanism is for software
GV:  I thought at the last meeting someone said that we didn’t need to define that, that WCAG didn’t for web pages and we didn’t need it  -- and no one objected.  But we can use the one developed that relates to that.  It would be.

   Navigational mechanisms (as used in 3.2.3)
active mechanisms that appear on more than one item in the set and whose primary purpose is to move the users focus of action from the navigational mechanism to different predefined locations in the set. 

  Examples:  
A table of contents that appears at the front of each document in a set where each item in the TOC is a hyperlink to another location in the set of documents.   
A menu that appears in every program in a set that will move the user to another location in the set. 




> incorporate any of the necessary thinking for 2.4.5 (which we have been developing) for what "locating a [software]" means
GV:  I don't understand what you mean here.    2.4.5 (with software program inserted)  would read 
 "More than one way is available to locate a {software program} within a set of {software programs} except where the {Software program} is the result of, or a step in, a process."
The exemption here is where software product can only be used after one product and/or before another in a process



	
> 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...
GV: Again if you could be more specific.  This is intended to get around the issues that our previous approaches ran into.    What are you referring to that you think applies here?


> 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.
> 
GV:  Agree.   Here are some examples based on what was said in the meetings.

Examples:
- A stand-alone training software is designed to be maximally familiar but highly responsive even where there is poor connectivity (rural etc).  So it runs offline but behaves much like a website or kiosk in that the software consists of a set of training software modules that the person navigates among depending on their needs.
- An office suite consists of tightly integrated Writing, Spreadsheet, presentation and web publishing programs.  From any of the programs there is a simple menu that lets you jump to any other program in the suite so that you can easily switch between them as you need. 
- A compiler suite has a number of tools that a user might engage while creating their program.  No matter which tool you are in, there is a string of icons at the upper right that allows you to easily jump to any of the other tools. 


> 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. 
> 
GV:  I talked with the co-chair of WCAG about this and  she might be agreeing with some of what you said - depending on what you mean.
-  she said that (for 2.4.1 and 3.2.3) the SC talks about items that have to be on multiple pages (not only on one page)  (that seems to be different than what you say if software is equated with web page as proposed) 
 -  but she also said (at least for 3.2.3) if there were 'internal links' to the page that appeared on multiple pages  (e.g.  jump to top or bottom or toc) then there is nothing is the SC that says they would not be included   (is this part of what you meant?)

	
> 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.
> 
GV: I did work on your version (we spoke about this before)  but you'll remember that  in doing so I found that it wasn’t tracking -- and that some of the assumptions it was based on didn’t work out - or didn’t seem valid in genereral -- only for some content.  It was only after being unable to do that -- and seeing a path out -- that I proposed (on the same page) what I was finding. 

let me know if you need more.

back to my conference. 

G


> 
> 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 hyperlinks 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
>> (1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence)  
>> replacing "Content", with "Non-Web content" 
>> (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
>> (3.2.4 Consistent Identification)   
>> replacing “a set of Web pages” with "non-embedded content or software”
>> (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_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment