- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <021e01c64cfd$84195f50$ef64d946@NC6000BAK>
Here are all the normative issues that we need to discuss and close. Some have been posted to the list separately - but I am keeping a separate list here in one place of things we must clear These are the only normative items I am aware of . If you know of any others - please let me know Thanks Gregg ISSUE #1728 Scoping is a very scary concept. With scoping it is possible to scope out all the multimedia (e.g. training packages) that are critical to users and claim full conformance with the rest of the site even though the rest of the site is not much use without the multimedia. Scoping should be handled very carefully. [TWG] Also another comment about whether we mean that you can or can't do this. In putting together all our decisions into the Introduction and Conformance sections - I found that we don't have any wording for a few things that I think we decided. Below are three things - that if we agree on - should be clear in the last call document. 1) We intend for a page to be accessible without requiring that all links on a page lead to accessible content. (otherwise one could never link to content out of their control). 2) We want to allow people to separate content on their website and make claims for some but not all of it. (someone else may require accessibility but we do not). 3) We also decided that a process shouldn't be accessible up to its final stages and then go inaccessible. Like everything in a store but the checkout. To fix this -the following addition to our scoping section is proposed which currently reads <current text> Scoping of conformance claims Conformance claims can be limited, or "scoped," to pertain to only some parts of a Web site. All conformance claims, however, must be directed to a URI or a range of URIs. Scoping to exclude a particular type of content (for example, images or scripts) from a site is not allowed since it would allow exclusion of individual success criteria. Scoping by URI to exclude sections of a site is allowed so that authors can make claims for just some parts of a site. Example 3 above is a scoped conformance claim. <end of current text> <start proposed text to add to the end of the above> Scoping can include and exclude parts of a site. However processes and authored units must be evaluated in their entirety. If part of a process unit does not conform (at some level), than no conformance (at that level) can be made for any web unit in the process. The same applies to authored units. Example 1: An online store has a series of pages that are used to select and purchase products. All pages in the sequence must conform in order to claim conformance for any page that is part of the sequence. Example 2: A site has a collection of videos for which it was not required to and did not want to claim accessibility. The site can locate the videos in one location (e.g. example.com/movies) and then write a conformance claim for the site or section of the site that excludes that location. As long as the pages on the site only linked to the videos (and did not embed them in a Web page or other web unit) the conformance claim would be valid. Linking to inaccessible content does not make a page inaccessible. Only if that content is rendered together with the web page (or other web unit) or if the content is itself a Web unit within the set of URIs to which the conformance claim applies (or if the Web unit is part of a process for which a claim is made) would it have to meet the guidelines in order for the claim to be valid. This scoping provision does not preclude an organization, customer, or government from requiring that all parts of a site be accessible or meet some standard including WCAG. WCAG does not require that full websites conform, although that is certainly seen as desirable. A conformance claim only requires conformance for Web Units that are in the URI set described in the claim. <end proposed additional text> #2 1643: 2.2 L2 SC1 Change "any" to "all" http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1643 For 2.2.2 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#N1054E> "Content does not blink for more than 3 seconds, or a method is available to stop any blinking content in the delivery unit" Change "any" to "all" because use of "any" implies that the user can be required to turn off each blinking item independently. Proposal: Adopt change to SC and CLOSE. 1644: 2.2 L2 SC2 Change to "...paused by the for at least N minutes" http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1644 A time duration during which a user-requested pause of moving content should be provided, or alternately it should be specified that pause means "stop indefinitely until user requests restart". Proposal: add a definition to the glossary for "paused" in the SC - Paused: timing or movement stops when user requests, and does not restart unless the user requests. Then CLOSE the issue. 1768: Clarify "invalidate the activity" http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1768 SC 2.2.1 "Invalidate the activity" presumably means something like "defeat the purpose of the activity", and should I think be defined as a term or a substitute such as the above should be used in its place. Proposal: Adopt suggestion to replace "Invalidate the activity" with "defeat the purpose of the activity" and CLOSE the issue. 1767 SC 1.3.5 (sequence affects meaning) should be Level 1 Should this be at level 1? How can structure/functionality be separated from presentation if this criterion isn't satisfied, i.e., the content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, but that sequence can't be programmatically determined? In other words, it appears that if this criterion isn't met, anyone reading the content serially is going to face a major accessibility challenge. On the other hand, if this sequence isn't part of the perceivable structure, and hence not covered at level 1, then everyone is going to have a difficult time making sense of the material, regardless of presentational modality. Hence my question: in what situations is this not already addressed at level 1, and in those circumstances is the accessibility barrier so significant as to warrant moving this criterion to level 1 (or alternatively level 2)? --- The priority level seems way too low. How is the requirement for a logical reading order not justified at level 1? I would argue that this is a huge barrier to accessibility for web content like Flash and PDF. = The requirement for a logical reading order (1.3.5) is too low (level 3), should be level 1. ---- 1.3.5: This should be level 2. At the very least make it level 2 that the content makes sense when linearized or a linearized version is provided. If someone uses a table for layout then they shouldn't be allowed to get level 2 compliance on this point if the table content does not make sense when linearized. ---- resolution: move SC 1.3.5, "When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be programmatically determined" to level 2. When techniques are more complete, we will revisit the question of moving this to level 1. 1893 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1893> concerns that 4.1.2 prohibits HTML components Close pending following action item. Cynthia to write a technique or example that describes how to write an accessible tree. 1446 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1446> Add sign language to alternative representations John's proposal introduces Signed video as L3 requirement [1] "Signed video is available for key pages or sections of pages." WCAG WG rejected the proposal at the 14 June 2005 face-to-face meeting [2] and 23 June 2005 teleconference [3]. Someone needs to summarize why the proposal was rejected. 1772 "delivery unit" vs "content" 3.1.2: should be "in the delivery unit" rather than "in the content"? More generally, where should the success criteria refer to "the content" rather than to "the delivery unit", or vice versa? What is the principle to be used in making this determination? Surveyed 13 March 2006. Proposed 3.1.2 The natural language of each passage or phrase in the Web unit can be programmatically determined. Proposal was widely supported, but there was an open question about whether this should be "Web unit or authored component." CHANGE SC to Web Unit and CLOSE WITH Changed SC to Web Unit . 403 Definition of "informative" "informative" material: Again, "informative" is used without definition (how does it differ from "non-normative"??) Need to close this one.
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:39:03 UTC