Web and Software:December 13

Miscellaneous

• Minutes from December 6, 2006 approved.
• Next week Andi will be on vacation. Curtis Chong will chair the call.
• Subcommittee Deliverables drafts started by Andi. Summarizing where we are on each provision. Subcommittee will have opportunity to review and raise issues prior to delivery to the TEITAC. Goal is to report on our findings on the existing provisions at the next TEITAC meeting February 6th.

Review of action items from December 6th

1. IN PROCESS: Judy Brewer to send requirements for W3C copyright notices. WCAG working group is documenting how to reference WCAG standards.
2. Andi to check with Access Board staff to confirm that we can quote provisions in other standards.
3. Unassigned: Need a presentation on where graphical applications are going.
4. COMPLETE: Shannon Rapuano to post information on the wiki on color inheritance in Windows, including the application workspace. Sueann Nichols has started a page on inheriting system settings.
5. IN PROCESS: Sean Hayes to write a proposal for a default minimum contrast.
   • need something objective we can measure. Concern that the phrase "entirely operable by users" makes this extremely difficult to test.
   • actually measuring contrast ratios in user interface is extremely difficult. The way it is typically rendered... whereabouts in the text do you take the foreground & background colors? You have anti-aliasing, LCDs using different color pixels. So you need to define the "edge" of text. That is compounded in a logo. Modern interfaces are using translucency, which makes things even harder. So actually defining what contrast is is very hard.
   • Sean to continue to work on the draft
6. ONGOING: Gregg Vanderheiden to do some research with the low vision community to see what they want with regard to color and contrast.
7. IN PROCESS: Randy Marsden to poll AT vendors to determine if 21(e) (consistent labeling of bitmap images) is still necessary for AT interoperability.
   • 21(e) is needed for AT interoperability if applications don't properly expose object information as required by 21(d).
   • may be able to demote this to "sufficient techniques"
8. COMPLETE: Peter Korn and Andrew Kirkpatrick to develop a proposal of the minimum set of accessibility information that user interface elements must provide to AT. Additionally, provide example scenarios (e.g. a form on a web page) and describe the information they must provide and how it meets AT needs. Luke Kowalski to review early draft.
   • Mailing list discussion on this proposal started after the meeting. Will be discussed at either the December 20th or January 3rd meeting.

Group D: 22(d) Readable with style sheets disabled

• This requirement is no longer needed. What is important is that the content have structure and that the reading order can be determined.
• New technologies for rich Internet applications (RIA) cannot work with CSS disabled. If this remains in 508, RIAs will not be able to conform to 508 even though they can be made to be accessible.
• Recommend removing this requirment.
• Action: Jim Thatcher to write a proposal for a requirement on structure and/or reading order.

Unfinished software items

When we discussed the software focus indicator requirement - 21(c) - we concluded that we should adopt the ISO wording but make explicit the requirement that the focus be programmatically exposed. But we need to discuss and approve an exact proposal on focus indicator for software.

• No objections to the proposal but is related to the API proposal by Peter Korn.
• Could reference the API information or the sentence on programmatically exposing the focus may not be needed because it is redundant. Redundancy is okay though.
• Table this for now. Reconsider in discussion on the API proposal.

Potential Gaps in Web Requirements

• Web Focus Indicator Proposal
  • Programmatic exposure of the focus is the responsibility of the browser or user agent.
  • But it is possible for an author to break this using CSS and Flash.
  • Goes back to the question of whether or not Flash and Web applications will be evalutated using the software or the Web requirements.
  • For harmonization with WCAG 2.0, it is important that the Web requirements be able to address all types of Web content. If this is what we want, we may find that all of the software requirements will need to be included in the Web section.
  • Developers have to expose focus to the platform they are developing for. This is related to the API proposal by Peter Korn.
  • UAAG may be helpful here.
  • Points on focus indicator and UAAG added to general issues page to be included when we get to those discussions.

Discuss idea from subpart A subcommittee on assigning priorities to technical standards

Here is a summary of the points raised:

• some thought that some supplemental guidance on which checkpoints support specific disabilities would be useful to agencies. Others oppose this idea because it may lead to prioritization based on disability type which is not good.
• some feel strongly that 508 is the minimum set and no further prioritization should be done. Others thought that if agencies are doing it anyway, then a consistent set would be good.
• some pointed out though that the priority is dependent on the context of the agency and the application. For example, in a Web application, the forms requirement is high priority but in a website where the use of forms is very limited, such as on a Contact Us page, the forms requirement might not be so important.

Response provided to Subpart A subcommittee via Rex Lint on December 15, 2006.

Summary of new Action Items

• Jim Thatcher to write a proposal for a requirement on structure and/or reading order.

Attendees

1. Eric Damery - Freedom Scientific
2. Don Evans - AOL
3. Mike Burks
4. Katie Haritos-Shea
5. Peter Korn, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
6. Blene Bekure (LMIT)
7. Randy Marsden (ATIA)
8. Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)
9. Tom Brett
10. Jim Allan (W3C)
11. Andi Snow-Weaver - IBM
12. Dr. David Patterson (MA - ITD)
13. John Gardner, ViewPlus
14. Drew LaHart - IBM
15. Sean Hayes
16. Amy Chen (Oracle)
17. Barbara Lybarger, Mass. Office on Disability
18. Michael Cooper, W3C
19. Jessica Brodey - ATIA
20. Dewi Gani - SAP
21. Jim Thatcher
22. Earl Johnson - Sun Microsystems, Inc.
23. David Oyola (Ricoh Corp)
24. Kate Walser (SRA)