Thread Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Jul 10 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)

How can we close on this?

Peter proposed:

July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected contrast and color
selections and other individual display attributes when the availability of
those selections are developed and documented according to industry
standards.

Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user selected contrast and
color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
platform they are running on.

Sean expressed concern that
- "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too broad, and
- applications should not be prevented from overriding system settings but
rather should be required to have a mode that respects them

Peter responded with an updated proposal:
Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected contrast and
color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
platform they are running on.

And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
indicator in the list of display attributes.

Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display attributes"? What
else is there that is really critical for accessibility that we should add
to the list? Font? Font size?

Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor appearance.

Andi

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Tue, Jul 10 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-CUser Preferences)

What about a combination such as:

Applications must utilize user selected contrast and color selections
and other individual display attributes defined by the platform they are
running on, and when the availability of those selections are developed
and documented according to industry standards.
Don

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Jul 10 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-CUser Preferences)

I'd pick the last one you listed.
Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor
appearance.

I'd rephrase for consistency however:

Applications must allow use of platform user settings for contrast,
color, font, font size, and cursor appearance.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:51 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now
3.2-CUser Preferences)


How can we close on this?

Peter proposed:

July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected contrast and
color selections and other individual display attributes when the
availability of those selections are developed and documented according
to industry standards.

Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user selected contrast
and color selections and other individual display attributes defined by
the platform they are running on.

Sean expressed concern that
- "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too broad, and
- applications should not be prevented from overriding system settings
but rather should be required to have a mode that respects them

Peter responded with an updated proposal:
Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected contrast
and color selections and other individual display attributes defined by
the platform they are running on.

And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
indicator in the list of display attributes.

Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display attributes"?
What else is there that is really critical for accessibility that we
should add to the list? Font? Font size?

Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor
appearance.

Andi

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Tue, Jul 10 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)

The discussion of "other display attributes defined by the platform" centered around being sure to cover possible future tactile, aural and other sense (smell, etc) user selected setting.

Katie Haritos-Shea

-----Original Message-----
>From: Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Jul 10, 2007 2:50 PM
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)
>
>
>How can we close on this?
>
>Peter proposed:
>
>July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected contrast and color
>selections and other individual display attributes when the availability of
>those selections are developed and documented according to industry
>standards.
>
>Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user selected contrast and
>color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
>platform they are running on.
>
>Sean expressed concern that
>- "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too broad, and
>- applications should not be prevented from overriding system settings but
>rather should be required to have a mode that respects them
>
>Peter responded with an updated proposal:
>Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected contrast and
>color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
>platform they are running on.
>
>And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
>indicator in the list of display attributes.
>
>Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display attributes"? What
>else is there that is really critical for accessibility that we should add
>to the list? Font? Font size?
>
>Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
>user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor appearance.
>
>Andi
>
>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Jul 10 2007 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)

Katie wrote:

The discussion of "other display attributes defined by the platform"
centered around being sure to cover possible future tactile, aural and
other sense (smell, etc) user selected setting.

Katie,

A concern has been expressed that "other display attributes defined by the
platform" is too broad because it encompasses display attributes that may
not affect accessibility.

And we tried something like "other display attributes defined by the
platform as accessibility features" but this wording is viewed as too
narrow. The display attributes might not be called accessibility features
even though they benefit accessibility.

Can you suggest wording that would solve both of these concerns without
limiting it from encompassing important future user settings?

Andi

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)

Hi Andi,

In addition to this history, I should add that Sean proposed specific
language. I believe it was:

"When a product permits a user to adjust color, contrast or other display settings, at least one selection shall be to use the corresponding setting of the platform. Products which use the display and don't provide adjustable settings shall use the corresponding setting of the platform"

I believe this collapses 1194.21(g) and 1194.21(j), or in "July 6 parlance" is 3.2-C and a little bit of 3.2-A


That said, I like where you are headed with this. Allen, I understand your modification, but I think it is clearer for engineers to keep the "have a mode" language, and use "shall" rather than "must" (I believe that language is "more standardese"). I would add one more tiny modification to what Andi had:

"Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and the focus indicator appearance."

Perhaps I'm not understanding "cursor appearance", but I'm always
confused as to whether that is the mouse cursor or the text caret.
Since text caret is explicitly covered by 3.4-C "Focus indicator", I
think this modified language addresses that. I don't think we've seen
much issues with mouse cursor appearance...


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> How can we close on this?
>
> Peter proposed:
>
> July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected contrast and color
> selections and other individual display attributes when the availability of
> those selections are developed and documented according to industry
> standards.
>
> Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user selected contrast and
> color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
> platform they are running on.
>
> Sean expressed concern that
> - "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too broad, and
> - applications should not be prevented from overriding system settings but
> rather should be required to have a mode that respects them
>
> Peter responded with an updated proposal:
> Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected contrast and
> color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
> platform they are running on.
>
> And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
> indicator in the list of display attributes.
>
> Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display attributes"? What
> else is there that is really critical for accessibility that we should add
> to the list? Font? Font size?
>
> Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
> user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor appearance.
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-CUser Preferences)

It is related to 3.2 A
but "collapse" may be misleading when used with "part of". I know you
didn't mean it covered 3.2 A Peter -but I just didn't want to see us try to
collapse a "settings" provision with the contrast (one type of setting)
provision.



PS the new WCAG provision for Contrast includes 'disabled' elements now (as
an exception)


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:05 AM
> To: Andi Snow-Weaver
> Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g)
> (now 3.2-CUser Preferences)
>
> Hi Andi,
>
> In addition to this history, I should add that Sean proposed
> specific language. I believe it was:
>
> "When a product permits a user to adjust color, contrast or
> other display settings, at least one selection shall be to
> use the corresponding setting of the platform. Products which
> use the display and don't provide adjustable settings shall
> use the corresponding setting of the platform"
>
> I believe this collapses 1194.21(g) and 1194.21(j), or in
> "July 6 parlance" is 3.2-C and a little bit of 3.2-A
>
>
> That said, I like where you are headed with this. Allen, I
> understand your modification, but I think it is clearer for
> engineers to keep the "have a mode" language, and use "shall"
> rather than "must" (I believe that language is "more
> standardese"). I would add one more tiny modification to
> what Andi had:
>
> "Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
> user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and the
> focus indicator appearance."
>
> Perhaps I'm not understanding "cursor appearance", but I'm
> always confused as to whether that is the mouse cursor or the
> text caret.
> Since text caret is explicitly covered by 3.4-C "Focus
> indicator", I think this modified language addresses that. I
> don't think we've seen much issues with mouse cursor appearance...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > How can we close on this?
> >
> > Peter proposed:
> >
> > July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected
> contrast and
> > color selections and other individual display attributes when the
> > availability of those selections are developed and documented
> > according to industry standards.
> >
> > Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user
> selected contrast
> > and color selections and other individual display
> attributes defined
> > by the platform they are running on.
> >
> > Sean expressed concern that
> > - "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too
> broad, and
> > - applications should not be prevented from overriding
> system settings
> > but rather should be required to have a mode that respects them
> >
> > Peter responded with an updated proposal:
> > Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected
> > contrast and color selections and other individual display
> attributes
> > defined by the platform they are running on.
> >
> > And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
> > indicator in the list of display attributes.
> >
> > Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display
> attributes"?
> > What else is there that is really critical for
> accessibility that we
> > should add to the list? Font? Font size?
> >
> > Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the
> > platform user settings for contrast, color, font, font
> size, and cursor appearance.
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now3.2-C User Preferences)

I don't class these as display attributes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Haritos-Shea" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now3.2-C User
Preferences)


The discussion of "other display attributes defined by the platform"
centered around being sure to cover possible future tactile, aural and other
sense (smell, etc) user selected setting.

Katie Haritos-Shea

-----Original Message-----
>From: Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Jul 10, 2007 2:50 PM
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C
>User Preferences)
>
>
>How can we close on this?
>
>Peter proposed:
>
>July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected contrast and color
>selections and other individual display attributes when the availability of
>those selections are developed and documented according to industry
>standards.
>
>Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user selected contrast and
>color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
>platform they are running on.
>
>Sean expressed concern that
>- "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too broad, and
>- applications should not be prevented from overriding system settings but
>rather should be required to have a mode that respects them
>
>Peter responded with an updated proposal:
>Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected contrast and
>color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
>platform they are running on.
>
>And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
>indicator in the list of display attributes.
>
>Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display attributes"? What
>else is there that is really critical for accessibility that we should add
>to the list? Font? Font size?
>
>Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
>user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor appearance.
>
>Andi
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C User Preferences)

it might help if we knew what attributes have no bearing on accessability?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andi Snow-Weaver" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C
User Preferences)


Katie wrote:

The discussion of "other display attributes defined by the platform"
centered around being sure to cover possible future tactile, aural and
other sense (smell, etc) user selected setting.

Katie,

A concern has been expressed that "other display attributes defined by the
platform" is too broad because it encompasses display attributes that may
not affect accessibility.

And we tried something like "other display attributes defined by the
platform as accessibility features" but this wording is viewed as too
narrow. The display attributes might not be called accessibility features
even though they benefit accessibility.

Can you suggest wording that would solve both of these concerns without
limiting it from encompassing important future user settings?

Andi

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Wed, Jul 11 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now3.2-C User Preferences)

Yes David,

I think we were talking about "user rendering settings", "User interface settings", or something along those lines. It was meant to cover more than display attributes that covered other sensory modalities.

Katie

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Jul 11, 2007 9:32 AM
>To: Katie Haritos-Shea < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now3.2-C User Preferences)
>
>I don't class these as display attributes.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Katie Haritos-Shea" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Cc: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now3.2-C User
>Preferences)
>
>
>The discussion of "other display attributes defined by the platform"
>centered around being sure to cover possible future tactile, aural and other
>sense (smell, etc) user selected setting.
>
>Katie Haritos-Shea
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andi Snow-Weaver < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>Sent: Jul 10, 2007 2:50 PM
>>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] More thoughts on 1194.21(g) (now 3.2-C
>>User Preferences)
>>
>>
>>How can we close on this?
>>
>>Peter proposed:
>>
>>July 6th draft: Applications must utilize user selected contrast and color
>>selections and other individual display attributes when the availability of
>>those selections are developed and documented according to industry
>>standards.
>>
>>Peter proposed: Applications shall utilize the user selected contrast and
>>color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
>>platform they are running on.
>>
>>Sean expressed concern that
>>- "other display attributes defined by the platform" is too broad, and
>>- applications should not be prevented from overriding system settings but
>>rather should be required to have a mode that respects them
>>
>>Peter responded with an updated proposal:
>>Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the user selected contrast and
>>color selections and other individual display attributes defined by the
>>platform they are running on.
>>
>>And we have discussed in another thread including the visual vocus
>>indicator in the list of display attributes.
>>
>>Maybe we should just delete "and other individual display attributes"? What
>>else is there that is really critical for accessibility that we should add
>>to the list? Font? Font size?
>>
>>Next proposal: Applications shall have a mode that utilizes the platform
>>user settings for contrast, color, font, font size, and cursor appearance.
>>
>>Andi
>>
>>