W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Proposed new language on conformance - to address WCAG WG concerns

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:53:29 -0700
Message-ID: <518A9F29.5090308@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "'Andrea Snow-Weaver'" <asnowweaver@gmail.com>, public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:56:23 UTC