Thread Subject: Re: Reorganized Web and Software provisions

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 7:30 AM

True

Which is why we say the application is responsible but they can take
advantage of any system level services in fulfilling it.

So the application benefits from services provided by the OS - if they are
provided.

Then we recommend that the OS provide them to make it easier for
applications on their platforms.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:18 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Reorganized Web and
> Software provisions
>
> Gregg,
>
> The ANSI and ISO approach is find if you're talking about
> native applications that only run on one platform. But it
> creates a problem for multi-platform applications. Either the
> application has to have a lot of special case code in it to
> provide support when platforms don't or the accessibility
> compliance of the application will be different for different
> platforms.
>
> 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
> 08/13/2007 11:11 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware]
> PM Reorganized Web and
> Software
> provisions
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think Peter is right here.
>
> In ANSI and ISO we took this approach and then noted that
> software can take advantage of systems functions but must
> supply them themselves if the system does not (or the program
> in such a way that the system functions are not used).
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Peter Wallack
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:38 PM.
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Reorganized Web and
> Software provisions No surprise here - I like this format a
> lot! Of course, we still have to contend with the use of
> words like 'product', 'content', 'page', 'document',
> 'software', etc. that are embedded within the provisions. For
> example, in the provision:
> Software must provide a visual indication of which user
> interface object currently has the keyboard focus is the
> word 'software' especially significant? Is it meant to refer
> to the user agent, or is it being used in a generic sense?
> To the extent that these words assign responsibility to
> specific layers of the tech stack, I am all for them;
> otherwise, we probably want to avoid them altogether,
> leading us to wording like:
> There must be a visual indication of which user interface
> object currently has the keyboard focus My preference would
> be to keep the provision totally generic, and then have
> technical guidance docs that delve into responsibility via
> suggested techniques.
>
> Another flavor of this restructuring, which eliminates
> repetitive 'if'
> statements, could be:
> 1.1 Color
> 1.3 Non-text content
> 1.6 Pausing
> 1.7 Flashing
> 1.8 Consistent use of components
> 1.9 Size, shape, location
> 1.10 Audio Turnoff
> 1.11 Reading order
> 1.14 Information and relationships
> 1.15 User Interface Components
> 1.16 User Preferences
> 1.17 Color adjustment
> 1.18 Disruption of access features
> 1.19 Timing
> 1.20 Keyboard Operation
> 1.21 Focus Cursor.
> 1.22 At interoperability
> 1.23 Both platform and app
> If Web content, documents, or documents combined with
> presentation
> instructions (such as style sheets): [text taken directly from
> Andi's proposal for 1.2 Contrast]:
> 1.2 Contrast
> 1.4 Human Language
> 1.5 Language of Parts
> 1.12 Bypass blocks
> 1.13 Link purpose.
>
>
> Peter Wallack
> Accessibility Program Director
> Oracle Corporation
>
>
> Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
> I've reworked the merged Web and Software proposal [1] based
> on our discussion on August 1st. [2]
>
> Here is a summary of the changes:
>
> - Removed the distinction between simple and interactive
> content since we could not agree on the distinction in all
> cases. This is now a simple list that can be applied to Web
> pages, other types of content, and software.
> Where provisions are not generally applicable, language
> limiting applicability has been added to the provision.
> Details below.
> - Changed the category title to Electronic Content and User
> Interface Provisions
> - Removed the "Animation" and "Bitmap Icons" provisions
> - Added proposals for "Color", "Contrast", and "User Preferences"
> - Added provisions from WCAG 2.0 that we have agreed to add:
> --- Human Language
> --- Language of parts
> --- Size, shape, location - also added Peter's proposed
> additional explanatory sentence.
> --- Audio Turnoff
> - Added a sentence about tab order in software to the
> "Reading Sequence"
> provision
> - Added applicability clause limiting "Bypass Blocks" and
> "Link Purpose"
> to
> Web pages only.
> - Added applicability clause limiting "AT Interoperability"
> to platforms that have AT interoperability support
> - Added an example for form element labels to "Information
> and Relationships"
>
> Please review this carefully. At tomorrow's call, we will
> discuss these changes. Our final draft is due on Friday.
>
> I will update the harmonization tables later today.
>
> [1]
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Reorganized_Web_and_S
> oftware_provisions_2
> [2]
>
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Analysis_of_impact_to
> _harmonization_with_WCAG_2.0_and_ISO
>
> Andi:
>
>

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