2.2 Issues List Recommendations

Hello,
 
Below is my take on the 2.2 bugz Open Issues. I have a SHORT LIST of the 14 bugs with recommendations and then a LONG LISTof the same bugs with the DETAILS of why I came to the conclusions I did.
 
To help, Ben had sent me a Summary he had prepared for Team A 
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teama/2005Oct/0031.html] 
 
 

2.2 Bugz Recommendations
 
SHORT (ha!) LIST
 
 
1.  880. Should blinking and movement be covered?
= 1 - addressed by our current edits.
 

2.  943. Why 10 times the default?
= 3 - Suggest rejecting comment and closing (based on our discussions to date)
if a reference cannot be found to point to.
 
 
3.  987. Add people who use an interpreter to the benefits.
This bug is actually 2 issues:
 
Issue 1, Add Interpreter.
= 4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it.
 
Suggestion: Add the sentence "In circumstances where a sign-language interpreter may 
be relating audio content to a user who is deaf, control over time limits is also 
important." to Benefits of 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6.
 
Issue 2, Add "people with physical disabilities" to Benefits.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits.
 
 
4.  1044. Suggestions for time-limits guideline.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
 
5.  1092. Time limits in Guideline 2.2 are still too small.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE. 
 
 
6.  1349. GL 2.2 Example 2 conflicts with usability.
Very similar to 1385.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.

This language has been removed.
Does this still beg the question that Ben C. asked "If an option to turn off updating 
content is in a separate preferences area of a site, do we consider that to be 
sufficient?", or has this been resolved through discussions?
 

7.  1382. GL 2.2, SC L2 usability problems.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 

8.  1383. GL 2.2, SC L3 - let user request update, rather than postpone automatic 
update.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 

9.  1384. GL 2.2 examples conflicts with guideline?
= 3 - Suggest rejecting comment and closing (based on our discussions to date).
 
 
10.  1385. non-default user settings harm accessibility.
Very similar to 1349.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
 
11.  1432. Guideline 2.2 - unsolicited transitions confuse.
= 4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it.
 
However this is also about a change of context question and should be addressed by 
Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.2, 3.2.5 Changes of context are initiated 
only by user request. 
 
Suggestion: If we want to include the Elderly in Understanding WCAG 2.0 
than.......Change this sentence in Benefits for 2.2.1 and 2.2.4  from "People who 
have cognitive or language problems need more time to read and to understand" to "The 
elderly and people who have cognitive or language problems need more time to read and 
to understand". Also add something like this in Benefits for 2.2.6 "People with low 
computer literacy, poor memory or the elderly, may easily be confused by inactivity 
timeouts or any behaviour that is not the direct result of their action and will 
benefit them by not being required to re-enter lost data. They will be less likely to 
think they have made a mistake".
NOTE: We do address "low literacy" in Benefits for 2.2.2.
 

12.  1459. time limits should not apply to testing. 
Very similar to 1552.
 
= 5 - keep item open.
or
= 4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it.
 
Suggestion: Change the bullet in the SC to say.........."the time-out is part of an 
activity where timing is essential (for example, competitive gaming or time-based 
testing) and time limits and disability accommodations can not be extended 
further without invalidating the activity" and include references to ADA info on 
extensions in the Understanding WCAG 2.0, SC 2.2.1 Related Resources
 

13.  1550. standards for blink?
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
 
14.  1552. concern about "invalidating the activity".
Very similar to 1459. See 1459 above. 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2 Bugz Recommendations 
 
LONG LIST
 
 
1.  880. Should blinking and movement be covered?
= 1 - addressed by our current edits.

DETAILS:
Any mention of Freezing content has been moved out of the Guidelines to Understanding 
WCAG 2.0 in the last example in Examples of Success Criterion 2.2.2.
Also the 'include blinking events as timed events is inappropriate' has been addressed by the NOTE linking to Guideline 2.3 (Allow users to avoid content that could cause seizures due to photosensitivity).
 
 

2.  943. Why 10 times the default?
= 3 - Suggest rejecting comment and closing (based on our discussions to date)
if a reference cannot be found to point to.
 
DETAILS:
June 2005 F2F discussion: "10 times" was based on experiences with people 
with motor disabilities / by talking to relevant population. E.g. keyboard 
repeat. Gregg V. had Action item: to Find references 
[http://www.w3.org/2005/06/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01].
 
 
 
3.  987. Add people who use an interpreter to the benefits.
This bug is actually 2 issues:
 
Issue 1, Add Interpreter.
= 4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it.
 
Suggestion: Add the sentence "In circumstances where a sign-language interpreter may 
be relating audio content to a user who is deaf, control over time limits is also 
important." to Benefits of 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6.
 
Issue 2, Add "people with physical disabilities" to Benefits.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits.
 

DETAILS:
The "people that are new on the web" comment is not an Accessibility Issue.

Comment 1, (wendy chisholm): RNID writes:
We would welcome some mention of the extra time that maybe required by people
who are using an interpreter to help them with some of the content on a site, in
order to raise awareness among designers that this is one group who they should
cater for. This mention would be best placed in the 'Benefits of [Guideline
2.2]' section, e.g. in the last sentence:
......by an assistive technology, voice browser, or a sign-language interpreter
relating audio content to a userĀ”.
 
Comment 2, (Loretta Guarino Reid): Soren Hansson, rep from Swedish National 
Accessibility Centre at the Office of the Disability Ombudsman, says:
Under "Who Benefits from Guideline 2.2 (Informative)" you ought to add people 
with physical disabilities that need more time to interact and people that are 
new on the web who also need more time.
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2005Jul/0018.html
 
 
 
4.  1044. Suggestions for time-limits guideline.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.

DETAILS:
Harvey (Bingham?) had 5 issues (other the '10 times' issue):
Comment 1, (wendy chisholm): Harvey writes:
 
Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2
"over a wide range which is at least ten times the length of the 
default setting" presumes there is a default setting.
some may wish it to be faster, others slower. 
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. (options)
 
Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2
"User is allowed to turn off content that blinks for more than 3 seconds. "
Why not allow total turn-off of blink?
= 1 - addressed by our current edits.
 
Level 3 success Criteria for Guideline 2.2 
"Real time events would not be allowed with this wording. Do we want to accept
them?" Ask/notify the user on real-time events, How they should be presented.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. (2.2.6)
 
Who Benefits from Guideline 2.2
Add "by" so that it reads, "when read out of order +by+ an assistive technology"
= 1 - addressed by our current edits.
 
Example of Guideline 2.2
Add "or never allow it" so that it reads, "The content provides an option that
allows the user to turn off the blinking +or never allow it.+"
The audio channel might be used as an alternative to blinking text?
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. (addresses under Optional Techniques for 2.2.2)
 
 
 
5.  1092. Time limits in Guideline 2.2 are still too small.
1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
DETAILS:
Similar to 943, but ASW suggested "adding minimum absolute time" which is include in 
the current wording. Also edits cover Roberto Castaldo suggestion "allowing the user 
to request more time when it is going to expire". 
 
 
 
6.  1349. GL 2.2 Example 2 conflicts with usability.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
Very similar to 1385.

This language has been removed.
Does this still beg the question that Ben C. asked "If an option to turn off updating 
content is in a separate preferences area of a site, do we consider that to be 
sufficient?", or has this been resolved through discussions?
 
 

7.  1382. GL 2.2, SC L2 usability problems.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
DETAILS:
I think the many issues raised here on Usability have been addressed in the current 
Draft wording. Also 26 May 2005 teleconference: blinking will not be banned.
 
 

8.  1383. GL 2.2, SC L3 - let user request update, rather than postpone automatic 
update.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
DETAILS:
Addressed wording of 2.2.5 and in Techniques for 2.2.5. Also, RNID wanted what is now 
2.2.5 and 2.2.6 (both Level 3) to be Level 1 or 2, has been discussed and rejected by 
the Working Group, to my knowledge.
 
 

9.  1384. GL 2.2 examples conflicts with guideline?
= 3 - Suggest rejecting comment and closing (based on our discussions to date).
 
DETAILS:
I agree with Bens comments "Catherine Brys says: Level 1 Success Criteria for 
Guideline 2.2 itself uses a warning which times out after at least 10 seconds. Is 
this not conflicting?"The time in the current draft(s) is 20 seconds, but the 
question is still relevant. However, I don't see a conflict; it is just an example of 
something that has to meet the L1 SC."
 
 
 
10.  1385. non-default user settings harm accessibility.
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
Very similar to 1349.
 
 
 
11.  1432. Guideline 2.2 - unsolicited transitions confuse.
= 4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it.
 
However this is also about a change of context question and should be addressed by 
Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.2, 3.2.5 Changes of context are initiated 
only by user request. 
 
Suggestion: If we want to include the Elderly in Understanding WCAG 2.0 
than.......Change this sentence in Benefits for 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 from "People who 
have cognitive or language problems need more time to read and to understand" to "The 
elderly and people who have cognitive or language problems need more time to read and 
to understand". Also add something like this in Benefits for 2.2.6 "People with low 
computer literacy, poor memory or the elderly, may easily be confused by inactivity 
timeouts or any behaviour that is not the direct result of their action and will 
benefit them by not being required to re-enter lost data. They will be less likely to 
think they have made a mistake".
NOTE: We do address "low literacy" in Benefits for 2.2.2.
 
 

12.  1459. time limits should not apply to testing.
Very similar to 1552.
 
= 5 - keep item open.
or
= 4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it.
 
Suggestion: Change the bullet in the SC to say.........."the time-out is part of an 
activity where timing is essential (for example, competitive gaming or time-based 
testing) and time limits and disability accommodations can not be extended 
further without invalidating the activity" and include references to ADA info on 
extensions in the Understanding WCAG 2.0, SC 2.2.1 Related Resources.
 
DETAILS:
Comment 1, (Loretta Guarino Reid): Silvia Caras says:
"the time-out is part of an activity where timing is essential (for example, 
competitive gaming or time-based testing) and time limits can not be extended further 
without invalidating the activity. I believe that the US ADA allows extensions even 
for time-based testing as a disability accommodation, so I'd like to see this comment 
be more forgiving."
 
Ben notes "Given our definition of an 'activity where timing is essential', I think 
the SC is clear without the parenthetical. However, we should clarify this in the 
guide doc and include references to ADA info on extensions in the guide doc 
references."
 
I think Wendy suggestion would address the first concern of Silvia Caras, change the 
bullet in the SC to say.........."the time-out is part of an activity 
where timing is essential (for example, competitive gaming or time-based 
testing) and time limits and disability accommodations can not be extended 
further without invalidating the activity". Ben's suggestion would address the ADA 
reference.

 

13.  1550. standards for blink?
= 1 - addressed by our current edits. CLOSE.
 
DETAILS:
Addressed by NOTE linking to Guideline 2.3 (Allow users to avoid content that could 
cause seizures due to photosensitivity) and definitiions for 'general flash 
threshold' or 'red flash threshold'.
 
 
 
14.  1552. concern about "invalidating the activity".
Very similar to 1459. See 1459 above.

Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2005 19:44:30 UTC