Web and Software:November 29

Miscellaneous

• Minutes from November 22, 2006 approved with one correction. Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe) added as an attendee.

Review of action items from November 22nd

1. Judy Brewer to send requirements for W3C copyright notices.
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. IN PROCESS: Shannon Rapuano (IMB) 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. Sean Hayes to write a proposal for a default minimum contrast.
6. Gregg Vanderheiden to do some research with the low vision community to see what they want with regard to color and contrast.
7. Randy Marsden to poll AT vendors to determine if 21(e) (consistent labeling of bitmap images) is still necessary for AT interoperability.

Discussion of Group C provisions

21(d) & 21(f) Software - Object Information and text

• At the time the 508 standards were developed, client workspace area mostly contained text. But now the client space can be very complex. Maybe a separate requirement on text is not needed.
• OS/platform should provide at least on accessibility API. ISO requires this and provides 5 provisions that describe what the accessibility API must support. Some feel the ISO provisions are not quite enough.
• Action: 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.

21(l) & 22(n) Electronic Forms

• More clarity on forms in HTML than in the software space but don't want to call out HTML techniques specifically in the standard. That's too prescriptive.
• Could take the WCAG 2.0 approach Gregg Vanderheiden has recommended where the standard describes a general testable outcome and there are sufficient techniques provided that can be technology (HTML) specific.
• For software, put this on hold until we see the proposal from Peter and Andrew and then discuss how forms would be covered by it.
• Need to address actually providing the data through the API, not just defining the API. This is actually already required in the standard. The new proposal will more comprehensively define the functions that the accessibility API must support. If the application doesn't then use the API to provide the data, it would fail.
• For Web, we have two alternatives:
  • Some favor the WCAG 2.0 method which is to have a general testable requirement on interactive elements backed up by more specific techniques for HTML forms, JavaScript, AJAX, etc.
  • Some favor a specific provision in Section 508 addressing Web forms

22(l) & 22(m) Web - Scripts, applets, and plug-ins

• Issue with the wording of 22(n) - developers think it only applies to the link itself, not to what the link points to.
• For those who have to comply with WCAG 2.0, having a requirement in 1194.22 in 508 that refers back to 1194.21, means that developers will have to answer questions twice - once for WCAG 2.0 and again for 508.
• Applets and plug-ins may be "platforms" on a "platform" (browser) on a "platform" (OS) - need definition of "platform", "OS", "application". If you are nested 3 levels down, have to address how each level talks to the one above it so that the information ultimately gets to the OS API. Desktop sharing is an especially worrisome scenario.
• Need proposal from Peter and Andrew before we can go much farther with this.
• Two particular problems in this area that need to be addressed with sufficient techniques are:
  • Keyboard focus - traversal into and out of applets and plug-ins
  • Color/contrast - inheriting the system settings within the applet or plug-in.
• Generally in favor of WCAG 2.0 approach - have provisions in the Section 508 Web section that would address interactive content (applets, plug-ins, scripts) without referring to the software requirements. Need to investigate if all of the current 508 software provisions are addressed by WCAG 2.0.
• Action: Jim Thatcher and Earl Johnson to look for a mapping from 1194.22 to WCAG 2.0 or create one.

Summary of new action items

1. 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.

This action item was completed on December 12, 2006 with this draft proposal

1. Jim Thatcher and Earl Johnson to look for a mapping from 1194.22 to WCAG 2.0 or create one.

Attendees

1. Jim Thatcher
2. Andi Snow-Weaver - IBM
3. Tom Brett (OPM)
4. Jim Tobias
5. Mike Fratkin (SSA)
6. Blene Bekure (LMIT)
7. Peter Korn, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
8. Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)
9. Geoff Freed (NCAM)
10. Amy Chen (Oracle)
11. Jim Allan (W3C)
12. Donald Evans (AOL LLC)
13. Luke Kowalski (Oracle)
14. Earl Johnson [Sun]
15. Barbara Lybarger, Mass. Office on Disability
16. Luke Kowalski
17. Ken Kipnes
18. Michael Burks
19. Katie Haritos-Shea