- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:53:29 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "'Andrea Snow-Weaver'" <asnowweaver@gmail.com>, public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <518A9F29.5090308@oracle.com>
Hi gang,
Wow, this is a really long glossary definition, and a challenge to
re-cast for non-web ICT.
First, I would keep the qualification at the end of the second
paragraph, so it would read:
To qualify as an accessibility-supported use of a Web content
technology (or feature of a technology), both 1 and 2 must be
satisfied [for a technology] for a Web content technology (or feature):
Second, I'm not sure it is appropriate to retain the plural "user
agents" in the #1 requirement. For closed technology or other
situations in which the technology that makes things accessible is the
technology subject to WCAG2ICT, do we need "other players" to "play" the
technology? In fact, thinking a bit more broadly here, perhaps #1 needs
to be more significant recast for such situations. When the "technology"
is a document, then I think the direct substitution works -> "Web
content" becomes "document". When the "technology" is a platform or OS,
then... "The Operating System is supported natively in
widely-distributed user agents or other software that are also
accessibility supported" doesn't make sense, does it?
Or maybe the better approach is to introduce a new OR clause - a #5 that
covers the situation in which the technology that is "accessibility
supported" is one in which the "accessibility support" is completely
built in.
Other than that important case, I think the language substitutions in #1
thru #4 work pretty well.
Note #2 I think needs a more significant recast, particularly as it
references Conformance Requirements #4 and #5. I also think Note #3 may
not apply so well outside of the Web. Note #4 still explicitly refers
to Web, and so needs more edits. Finally, Note #5 likewise seems too
tied to Web to appear so little changed here.
In *Understanding Accessibility Support*, I think we need to add an "or
software" to the first AT reference, in the second sentence. To make
clear the disability focus, I would then also add "with a disability" to
the end of that sentence. To wit:
Many of the Success Criteria deal with providing accessibility
through assistive technologies or special accessibility features in
mainstream user agents *[or other software]* (for example, a 'show
captions' option in a media player). That is, the Success Criteria
require that something be done in the Web content *[or
software]* that would make it possible for assistive technologies to
*[or software] *successfully present the content's information to
the user *[with a disability]*. For example, a picture that you were
supposed to click on to go to a topic would not be accessible to a
person who was blind unless text alternatives for the picture were
provided in a way that user agents including assistive technologies
can find and display them. The key here is that the text alternative
must be included in a way that user agents *[or other
software]*including assistive technologies can understand and use –
in a way that is "Accessibility Supported."
This helps cover a situation that Janina & Jason brought up when
discussing command line / text application accessibility: their use of
mainstream command-line apps as part of the tools they use alongside
their AT to make apps accessible.
In *Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for "Accessibility
Support"*, I think again a more thorough re-write may be needed.
Because the W3C is more broadly staying away from making pronouncements
in the non-Web space, the second sentence may be too weak. It may be
better in fact for WCAG2ICT to simply leave this language alone, and add
a note to our glossary definition that we are doing so, and that the
existing "Level of AT..." language is Web centric and goes into topics
outside of our purview.
On a separate note, I wonder if we shouldn't talk with WCAG WG about the
language in Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for
"Accessibility Support"
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-support-level-head>,
as thing have changed in the last years, and some of the statements made
there are out of date (e.g. if it only works with VoiceOver on a Mac or
iOS - a single screen reader on that platform - is that still "usually
not sufficient" for that platform? Is it still the case that "free or
low cost AT is often so poor today"?)
Regards,
Peter
On 5/8/2013 9:00 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> since we are broadening their understanding (and not changing it) -
> yes I think we can do that.
>
> we can't make up new comments that cover both. but I think we can
> broaden their statements to say they would apply to ours too..
>
> Make sense? Andi? Peter? work for you?
>
>
> /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 May 8, 2013, at 8:57 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca
> <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gregg in general I liked the changes. I thought about using
>> “technology” instead of “non-web technology,” but thought if I did
>> that it would include all technology including “web technology”.
>> Is that Ok?
>> Cheers
>> David MacDonald
>> **
>> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*//
>> /Adapting the web to*all*users/
>> /Including those with disabilities/
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu
>> <http://trace.wisc.edu>]
>> *Sent:*May-08-13 12:34 AM
>> *To:*Andrea Snow-Weaver
>> *Cc:*David MacDonald; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
>> *Subject:*Re: Proposed new language on conformance - to address WCAG
>> WG concerns
>> thanks Dave,
>> took a shot at finishing what you started.
>> take a look and see if it works for you
>> /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 May 7, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Andrea Snow-Weaver
>> <asnowweaver@gmail.com <mailto:asnowweaver@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks David for putting forth this proposal. Since there hasn't been
>> any list discussion and you won't be at Friday's meeting, I think it
>> is premature to put this on a survey. Will you be able to be at the
>> meeting on the 17th?
>> Andi
>>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:34 PM, David MacDonald
>> <david100@sympatico.ca <mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
>> Hi All
>> I’ve taken a shot at accessibility-supported... quite the challenge...
>> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/accessibility-supported-glossary
>> http://tinyurl.com/c5xopp4
>> Cheers
>> David MacDonald
>> **
>> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
>> / Adapting the web to*all*users/
>> / Including those with disabilities/
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com
>> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>]
>> *Sent:*May-07-13 4:14 PM
>> *To:*public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>Force
>> *Subject:*Re: Proposed new language on conformance - to address WCAG
>> WG concerns
>>
>> Hi gang,
>>
>> I just finished working with Gregg on further tightening of the
>> language. Please see Proposal #4
>> athttps://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 5/6/2013 11:37 AM, Peter Korn wrote:
>>
>> Hi gang,
>>
>> As I reported in our meeting last Friday, WCAG WG rejected our
>> proposed language addressing conformance. I took the action from
>> WCAG WG to work up new language, which can be found
>> at:https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/c---conformance-all
>>
>> Please review & comment; compared to the TF's agreed text from
>> 19Apr13, in my edits new text is in[bracketed blue], while
>> deleted text isstrike through red.
>>
>>
>> Peter
>> --
>> <image001.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
>> <image002.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is
>> committed to developing practices and products that help protect
>> the environment
>>
>> --
>> <image001.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone:+1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <image002.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 Wednesday, 8 May 2013 18:54:36 UTC