Thread Subject: Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 25 2007 10:40 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
• Previous message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

See GV: Below



Gregg

-- ------------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.







> -----Original Message-----

> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf

> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick

> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:06 PM

> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee

> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Thoughts on Current Web Proposal

>

> > 1. We have deferred 1194.22(b) to the AV group. by deferring this,

> > the web standards lose their property of being

> self-contained. Each

> > set of standards was developed by the Board so they could

> stand alone;

> > so, for example, both the software standards and the web

> standards had

> > a requirement for forms accessibility. Since captioning on

> the web is

> > critical, we might consider keeping that standard in the

> web group.

> > If the AV subcommittee can make a recommendation to enhance

> it, we can

> > adopt it, but it still belongs in the web standards in

> whatever form

> > it takes.

>

> No, I don't agree. The current standards address captions,

> but don't include audio description in the web standards.

> I'm the current standards if you want audio and video access

> you must look at 1194.24.

>

> This is part of why I think that there needs to be a section

> in subpart A that details what sections users need to look at

> for specific types of E&IT. We will never succeed in being

> comprehensive in each section - developers may need to look

> to multiple sections and we need to provide better guidance.

>



GV: There are many different technologies and more coming into existence.
If we try to list them in Subpart A it will be inaccurate overnight.



But I see the problem. I think we need to qualify the provisions so that
it is clear which ones apply. Then a filter like the one in the filter tool
can be used to make it easy for others to see. The access board can
maintain it.







> > 3. in the proposed replacement for 22(e) and 22(f) and 21(a),

> > * 2.1.1 "All functionality of the content is operable through a

> > keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for

> individual

> > keystrokes, except where the underlying task requires analog,

> > time-dependent input,"

> > the phrase "analog, time-dependent input" has been a sticking point

> > for some of us. How do people feel about something like this:

> > "All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard

> > interface without requiring specific timings for individual

> > keystrokes, except where the underlying task requires a level of

> > control unattainable through a keyboard interface."

>

> That sounds like an open invitation for developers to feign

> ignorance...

>



GV: Yes. It needs to be objective. "unattainable" is likely to be
abused and is a judgement.

The subgroup is closing on something. Hope to have it to you all soon.



> > 5. I am wondering if we should delete the frames requirement

> > 1194.22(i).

> > At least for screen readers, definitive frame naming is

> helpful, but

> > no longer a major issue in terms of site navigation and

> comprehension.

>

> I still think that this could be lumped under a web standard

> similar to 21d - I'm not convinced that frames are important

> enough to call out individually either, but if we had a

> generalized and non-HTML specific standard that spoke to

> providing identify information for components of web pages

> and content, we could still cover it.



GV: It seems that this should be covered by a provision requiring names on
interface components or visible structures.

In WCAG it would be 1.3.1 and 4.1.2.





>

> AWK

>

• Next message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
• Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"