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

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Jul 02 2007 7:40 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have notyet lookedat"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Gregg,

This is not a proposal to add anything to the "content format" section.
This is an exercise to look at the WCAG 2.0 provisions that we haven't yet
considered for the "Web content and Applications" section.

We may find something through this analysis that we need to add to the
"Content Format" section but that's not the focus of this exercise.

Andi




Gregg
Vanderheiden
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
Sent by: Subcommittee'"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc

Subject
06/27/2007 11:10 Re: [teitac-websoftware] WCAG 2.0
PM provisions we have not yet
lookedat

Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>






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: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have notyet lookedat"