- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:36:16 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51B78A40.5000309@oracle.com>
Gregg, (sorry for the repeat Gregg; I see now I didn't reply to the list) I'm not sure your small change is actually needed. If a "compound document" is made up of "Part A" and "Part B", and "Part A" is currently being interacted with, then any non-focus means to move "out of Part A" is a "move into Part B" - the part with which they are now going to interact. If that results in a change of context, then it's a (non-focusing) change of context. When they then decide to "leave Part B", they are necessarily indicating a desire to interact with "Part A" - and so again, any (non-focusing) change of context that results is by our exception. Because leaving B means going into A, I think it is sufficient to only have this text cover that "direction". A side effect of that leaving may well be a loss of focus, but that isn't the action that "initiates the change of context". Peter On 6/11/2013 10:31 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > looks good > > now that is see it -- I see one small change needed. > > other than putting focus on that portion of the compound document > > other than putting focus on _or removing it from _that portion of > the compound document > > > /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 > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com > <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > >> Hi gang, >> >> At today's WCAG WG meeting, we went over our penultimate survey >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/Penultimate/results>. They >> accepted as proposed: >> >> * Definition of accessibility services of platform software >> * Programmatically Determined >> * Programmatically Set >> * Principle 4: >> * Guideline 4. >> * Short Name added to title >> >> They had two minor editorial changes to the Note in Change of >> Context, and the Note in SC 3.2.1 On Focus: >> >> In the Change of context note they removed a phrase to make things >> more clear: >> >> [Note: a change in the user agent might include bringing up a new >> windowto handle a new or some portion of the document, or might >> be a significant change in the menus and/or toolbars that are >> displayed and available for interacting with some portion of >> the document.] >> >> >> In the SC 3.2.1 Note, the modified the first phrase of the final >> sentence: >> >> Note: Some compound documents and their user agents are designed >> to provide significantly different viewing and editing >> functionality depending upon what portion of the compound >> document is being interacted with (e.g. a presentation that >> contains an embedded spreadsheet, where the menus and toolbars of >> the user agent change depending upon whether the user is >> interacting with the presentation content, or the embedded >> spreadsheet content). So long as the mechanism by which the user >> indicates they are interacting with a different portion of the >> compound document is by some means other than reception of focus >> within that portion of the compound document (e.g. by a menu >> choice or special keyboard gesture), that [If the user uses a >> mechanism other than putting focus on that portion of the >> compound document with which they mean to interact (e.g. by a >> menu choice or special keyboard gesture), any resulting] >> <glossary link>change of context</glossary link> wouldn't be >> subject to this success criterion because it was not caused by a >> change of focus. >> >> >> Gregg and I feel these are editorial changes, as no meaning changes. >> If anyone disagrees, please reply in this thread stating that, and we >> can discuss it on Friday. >> >> >> Otherwise, I think all the work that remains is noted on To do before >> 3rd/final public draft >> <https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/to-do-before-3rd-final-public-draft>: >> >> >> * Michael to integrate all approved changes (much of this is done, >> some still remains) >> * Potential edits to come from Judy to the introduction >> * Decide (and spell out in introduction) what our comment period >> should be >> * Misc. editorial issues (do WCAG2ICT Notes go inside or outside >> the "white box", etc.) >> * Our final check (and approval) of the intended 3rd public draft >> * WCAG WG's final check (and approval) of the intended 3rd public draft >> >> >> How much of this can we do in the coming 7 days...? >> >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> <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 <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 Tuesday, 11 June 2013 20:37:07 UTC