Re: Results from today's WCAG WG meeting: all our changes accepted, with two editorial edits; also a review of our remaining tasks

Hi all,

I've been late and you all solved this. I agree to take the WCAG wording
because the SC is about receiving focus.

Best regards,
Loïc


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Michael Pluke <
Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com> wrote:

> I have been going back and forth too – so I am also happy to take the WCAG
> wording exactly as it is.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
> *Sent:* 12 June 2013 02:30
> *To:* Michael Pluke
> *Cc:* Peter Korn; 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**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> I will buy that.****
>
> ** **
>
> it should say -- receives or gives up focus -- BUT IT DOESN’T.   So we
> shouldn’t either  -(or we are extending the success criterion )****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter is correct.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *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 7:16 PM, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
> 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> 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> 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 window to
> 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 <+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 <+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****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loïc Martínez-Normand
DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo
28660 Boadilla del Monte
Madrid
---------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
---------------------------------------------------------------