Thread Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yetlookedat

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2007 6:10 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat"
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I sure hope so.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:11 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not
yetlookedat

We're talking about putting this in both the content section (Web)
and the FORMAT section. Right?


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 6:21 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] WCAG 2.0 provisions we have
> not yet lookedat
>
> Hi Don,
>
> > I fully concur with adopting this WCAG 2 language for this standard:
> > "* 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is
> > presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be
> > programmatically determined and sequential navigation of
> interactive
> > components is consistent with that sequence."
> >
>
> This is addressed/being addressed in the content format
> proposal, of which web/HTML content is I think a proper
> subset. The proposed language is: "A content format shall
> provide an encoding mechanism to indicate a logical linear
> reading order of all content contained within it." Please
> see this in item #4 at:
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Content_Format_Propos
> al This language is more encompassing than 1.3.2, as it
> applies all of the time (and not just "When the sequence...
> affects its meaning").
>
> As a (former, lapsed) mathematician, I was once able to prove
> that in virtually all cases one can construct a liner order
> through any data set (there are a very few conditions that
> apply to such a data set, and web/document content complies
> with those conditions).
>
> > As I stated over the weekend, I strongly believe the following
> > standard should be reintroduced and included in the 508 standards:
> > "* 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."
> >
>
> I'm not managing to easily find detailed records of these
> discussions in order to review them. I do have concerns
> about how we would implement this in all cases, especially
> when we have multiple errors to be identified in one user
> validation/interaction. Perhaps our W3C/WAI friends can join
> this discussion with illustrations for how this might be
> handled, we might be able to successfully re-open this
> discussion and move forward with it in a more satisfying way.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > Don
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andi
> > Snow-Weaver
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:32 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_in_508_dr
> > af
> > t
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat"
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat"