- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:24:24 -0700
- To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
- CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51B7B1A8.4030603@oracle.com>
Mike, Gregg, I keep going back and forth on this - thinking I agree and then coming back to the conclusion that I don't agree... The SC text is (emphasis added): "When any /component *receives *focus/, */it /*does not initiate a change of context" The "it" that isn't initiating the change of context is the "component", and the barred behavior is when the "component receives focus". The SC doesn't say anything about loosing focus. And Understanding makes clear that 'What is meant by "component" here is also sometimes called "user interface element" or "user interface component''.' Also note in Understanding: "Any component that is able to trigger an event when it receives focus must not change the context." So for me, a strict reading of this text would allow changes of context on loss of focus, so long as it was the component loosing focus that initiated the change of context... I think the intent is better served by a slightly broader SC, but to do so might have us going slightly beyond what WCAG itself says. Peter On 6/11/2013 4:16 PM, Michael Pluke wrote: > > Although I think Peter is strictly correct, I think Gregg's addition > just makes things clearer. It doesn't rely on the reader figuring out > the consequential behaviours that Peter describes. > > Even if not strictly essential, is there any harm in making Gregg's > addition? > > Best regards > > Mike > > *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] > *Sent:* 11 June 2013 23:18 > *To:* Peter Korn > *Cc:* public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Results from today's WCAG WG meeting: all our changes > accepted, with two editorial edits; also a review of our remaining tasks > > Hmmm.. That is true but if a person says (the change was caused by > part A losing focus but not by part B gaining focus) it sounds like > it isn't covered. But if you don't want to add it -- I am OK. This > isn't normative, just a note. I think it is a better, clearer, more > accurate note if the phrase is added. But it is just a note so > doesn't change anything if the phrase is omitted. > > /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 3:36 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com > <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote: > > > > 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 > <http://cloud4all.info/> > Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - > http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/> > and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - > http://GPII.net <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_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 23:25:15 UTC