Thread Subject: SSA Comments on recommended 1194.21 provisions

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: SSA Comments on recommended 1194.21 provisions

Initial comments from the SSA Accessibility Staff on the recommended
1194.21 provisions shared at the last TEITAC meeting.


1194.21a (minor edit for clarity)
All functionality of the user interface is operable through a keyboard
interface. Specific timings for individual keystrokes cannot be
required, except where the underlying function requires input that
depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.


1194.21 (c)
Consider specifying an acceptable contrast ratio and set a minimal pixel
size for the border to improve testability.


1194.21 (d)
How would an application vendor handle coding for multiple platforms?

Consider exposing page name and page section (heading tag and associate
different sections of a page)

Consider exposing field association directions and cues


1194.21 (g)
Consider deleting "when the availability of those selections are
developed and documented according to industry standards" . We don't
see the need for qualifying it-that confuses it. The systems colors and
fonts should always be an option, and they should always be user
selectable.


1194.21 (h)
Consider adding "Information provided in the animation should be
included (alt text, long description, or on screen)"

Consider deleting the specific reference to equivalent facilitation
here. Equivalent facilitation should not be encouraged as a way of
meeting a standard explicitly in the standard itself.


1194.21 (j)
Consider specifying "n"


1194.21 (l)
Consider specifying what is needed for access to directions and cues -
these have not been raised as a concern. Should this be an expansion of
other requirements - such as 1194.21(d), rather than making it specific
to electronic forms here?


New provisions:
Consider adding a provision for logical tabbing order. SSA runs across
many applications that do not provide a logical tabbing order, creating
situations where we could have "30 keystrokes to one mouse click".

Consider adding a provision for minimal size for clickable elements
including clickable text. (low vision users)

Thanks,
Robert

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: SSA Comments on recommended 1194.21 provisions

Thanks Rob,

Just two comments.



> 1194.21a (minor edit for clarity)
> All functionality of the user interface is operable through a
> keyboard interface. Specific timings for individual
> keystrokes cannot be required, except where the underlying
> function requires input that depends on the path of the
> user's movement and not just the endpoints.

The edit inadvertently changes the meaning and it is no longer correct. The
specific timings requirements always applies so needs to be attached to the
first phrase. The exception applies to all cases not just the timing
clause.



> 1194.21 (c)
> Consider specifying an acceptable contrast ratio and set a
> minimal pixel size for the border to improve testability.

This works only if screen resolutions don't change. Using pixel measures
for borders assumes specific resolutions for screens. When all screens have
double the horizontal and vertical resolution, then a two pixel border will
be as wide as a one pixel border today. Better to base it on angle of view
or some other similar measure that will stay tied to human perception.

Thanks

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Baker, Robert C.
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:48 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] SSA Comments on recommended
> 1194.21 provisions
>
> Initial comments from the SSA Accessibility Staff on the recommended
> 1194.21 provisions shared at the last TEITAC meeting.
>
>
> 1194.21a (minor edit for clarity)
> All functionality of the user interface is operable through a
> keyboard interface. Specific timings for individual
> keystrokes cannot be required, except where the underlying
> function requires input that depends on the path of the
> user's movement and not just the endpoints.
>
>
> 1194.21 (c)
> Consider specifying an acceptable contrast ratio and set a
> minimal pixel size for the border to improve testability.
>
>
> 1194.21 (d)
> How would an application vendor handle coding for multiple platforms?
>
> Consider exposing page name and page section (heading tag and
> associate different sections of a page)
>
> Consider exposing field association directions and cues
>
>
> 1194.21 (g)
> Consider deleting "when the availability of those selections are
> developed and documented according to industry standards" . We don't
> see the need for qualifying it-that confuses it. The systems
> colors and fonts should always be an option, and they should
> always be user selectable.
>
>
> 1194.21 (h)
> Consider adding "Information provided in the animation should
> be included (alt text, long description, or on screen)"
>
> Consider deleting the specific reference to equivalent
> facilitation here. Equivalent facilitation should not be
> encouraged as a way of meeting a standard explicitly in the
> standard itself.
>
>
> 1194.21 (j)
> Consider specifying "n"
>
>
> 1194.21 (l)
> Consider specifying what is needed for access to directions
> and cues - these have not been raised as a concern. Should
> this be an expansion of other requirements - such as
> 1194.21(d), rather than making it specific to electronic forms here?
>
>
> New provisions:
> Consider adding a provision for logical tabbing order. SSA
> runs across many applications that do not provide a logical
> tabbing order, creating situations where we could have "30
> keystrokes to one mouse click".
>
> Consider adding a provision for minimal size for clickable
> elements including clickable text. (low vision users)
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>