Thread Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 7:05 PM

I agree with you and I feel very strongly about including 3.3.1,

I am a little nervous about 3.3.2 because 3.3.1 already says that the
item causing the error has to be "identified and described." To force
suggestions borders on usability and may be beyond what comparable
access seems to be about.

I also wonder about 3.3.3. I am curious if OMB already has data
validation and feedback built into any data collection standards.

About 4.1.1, it certainly is testable, but I need convincing that AT
vendors are not handling the same code which is acceptable to browsers.
Could be a lack of experience on my part, and I know that many
generically feel that valid HTML is inherently more accessible than
invalid HTML, but I just haven't seen many instances where closing tags
and such really mattered. I also wonder how many web authoring tools
support this automatically; if we are pushing for a higher level of
coding than the browsers can handle, we may get lots of push back on
this unless we can really demonstrate it's a show stopper. And yes, it
is testable; I just need more information on its true do or die
relevancy.

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 5:16 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet
lookedat

The following were among the items in the "already rejected" category.


Three have to do with errors. I looked at the notes and it wasn't clear
why they were not included. I'm particularly interested in the first
but all three error related items seem fairly straightforward. Was a
problem identified that led to them not being included?



RE 4.1.1. This one is very testable and important to AT. Again - I
couldn't tell from the notes why it was left out. Can we consider at
least 3.3.1 and 4.1.1 and perhaps 3.2.2 and 3.3.3 as well?



Thanks

g



* 3.3.1 Error Identification: If an input error is automatically
detected, the item that is in error is identified and described to the
user in text. (Level A)

* Discussed on May 2, 2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_May_2#Cognitive_Proposals>
and May 16, 2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_May_16#WCAG_2.0_provisions_tha
t_could_address_cognitive_disabilities> as part of the proposal to
address cognitive disabilities
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Cognitive_comprehensive_propos
al#Level_1> .

* 3.3.2 Error Suggestion: If an input error is detected and
suggestions for correction are known, then the suggestions are provided
to the user, unless it would jeopardize the security or purpose of the
content. (Level AA)

* Discussed on May 2, 2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_May_2#Cognitive_Proposals>
and May 16, 2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_May_16#WCAG_2.0_provisions_tha
t_could_address_cognitive_disabilities> as part of the proposal to
address cognitive disabilities
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Cognitive_comprehensive_propos
al#Level_2> .

* 3.3.3 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For forms that
cause legal commitments or financial transactions to occur, that modify
or delete user-controllable data in data storage systems, or that submit
test responses, at least one of the following is true: (Level AA)

* Discussed on May 2, 2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_May_2#Cognitive_Proposals>
and May 16, 2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_May_16#WCAG_2.0_provisions_tha
t_could_address_cognitive_disabilities> as part of the proposal to
address cognitive disabilities
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Cognitive_comprehensive_propos
al#Level_2> .



* 4.1.1 Parsing: Content implemented using markup languages has
elements with complete start and end tags, except as allowed by their
specifications, and are nested according to their specifications. (Level
A)

* Discussed at the December 20, 1006
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:December_20> and April 18,
2007
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_April_18#Web:_Valid_and_Well-F
ormed_code> meetings in response to proposal that we add a provision on
valid and well-formed code
<http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Web_Gaps#Valid_and_Well-formed
_Code> .







Gregg

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

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.







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

> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

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

> Of Andi Snow-Weaver

> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 7:32 PM

> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not

> yet looked at

>

>

> Thanks to Drew LaHart for comparing the latest WCAG 2.0 draft

> with our current recommendations to identify additional WCAG

> 2.0 provisions we should consider. [1]

>

> This was a great exercise because it identified one provision

> that we had closed on that I had neglected to include in our

> submission to the TEITAC.

>

> The net is that we have 4 Level A provisions and 6 Level AA

> provisions to consider for our 508 recommendation. There are

> an additional 7 provisions that we have already considered

> and rejected.

>

> Please review these and register your comments on the list.

> We will discuss adding these to our recommendation at next

> week's meeting.

>

> [1]

> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:WCAG2_Provisions_not_i

> n_508_draft

>

> Andi

>

>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University