Web and Software: July 11

Miscellaneous

• Minutes approved from June 27, 2007.

Review of action items

1. IN PROCESS: Andi Snow-Weaver will update the cognitive proposal for compatibility with assistive technologies to address Peter Korn’s concerns, but this can not be closed until the API requirements are done. In addition, regulatory language will be added.
2. Allen Hoffman will sync provision 2 with AV group definition by next week. - Has not had time to get this done. It will be next week.
   • Allen will try to send something this afternoon and reconcil next week.
3. CLOSED: Andi Snow-Weaver will go back through and look for inconsistent language related to AT.
   • There are no problems.
4. CLOSED: Peter Korn and Sean Hayes to think about wording for 21g and provide a rewrite. Vendor should have documented as accessibility within the user interface.
   • This has not come to closure but is being discussed on the list. Andi to put on the agenda for discussion at the July 25th meeting.
5. CLOSED: Allen Hoffman to develop a proposal for remote access. See thread starting with Allen's post on June 20, 2007.
   • On our agenda for today.

Technical Topics

Definitions

Discussion

• Content
  • Okay to include all of the standards that are there
  • Add ODF.
  • It might be useful to call out interactive vs non-interactive content.
  • Hold on this one until we close on the bigger content discussion first on "what is Web content?"
• Other services needed to cooperate with AT -
  • An application is not cooperating if it has to be reverse engineered. When we say "any method used to interoperate ...then reverse engineer is not cooporating." To properly meet this provision the application should take steps to interoperate.
  • Change "any methods" to "other methods"
• Decorative animation and pure decoration
  • Concern about leaving this in the hands of the author and that it may not be what we really want to do. Decorative animation was put in by the author as a decoration for some specific reason and the decisions should not be left in the hands of the author.
  • Most members agreed that we must provide authors with enough information to make an informed and correct choice. It's always the author that has to make these decisions.
  • Concern that we are over looking the idea of comparable access. A sighted person can see it, then there must be an equivalent for a blind person. Such as Alt text. Some may go into the source to get the info
  • Clarified that we are discussing decorative animation not the ALT tag. There might be some kind of animation that would be decorative, but branding is not one of them. It is definitely conveying information. The branding should be adequately displayed. Second, if an animation is conveying information you may not be able to stop and restart it.
  • If reasonable people disagree on what is decorative then we have a problem with testability on this provision.
• If the animation is decorative the user has a means to stop it. The user can read it. Stopping animation is a good thing. There is tons of information that blind people don't want. This provides a way to let authors to make that decision to start and stop it. A refresh of the page would also restart it.
  • In addition to issues with definitions of decorative animation and pure decoration, we may have issues with the animation provision.
  • Continue to discuss on decorative animation and pure decoration on the mailing list. Don't submit for now.
• Add a definition for "authoring tools"
• AT definition is part of Sub-part A.

Analysis of impact of merging Web and software

• Suggestion that we need to call out and separate non-interactive and interactive content. The 3rd from the last provision in the Software section needs its own top level section. Concerned that its big enough to deserve its on section. Just suggesting we consider it.
• Harmonization goals are not quite there yet... One of the things is, there is a difference between organization of the provisions and what they say. How provisions are categorized and organized. If the provisions in 508 that encompass Web content happen to align with WCAG 2, it may not matter how they are organized...
  • Might be things in 508 and not WCAG.
  • No requirement for focus cursor in Web, but not WCAG.
• The platform provision has everything needed for the User Agents. What do we need to do, to go beyond, for something like a DVD player etc., Which are already defined in AV. Platform on a Platform we tried to get the roles understood and we ended up with a wide scoped user agent. Platform requires everything we need for UA requirements. You have content and then build on content with Web or software. Eventually this is the process you go through.
• It's about the interactive players that are playing programs. There is not much interaction for movies, reading doc etc.
• If this is going to apply to email and online help... cost in the government sector needs to be considered and the scope seems a great deal larger. Also there could be a problem with divorcing the content from the player. There are a bunch of things in here that do not work. It's difficult drawing the line between software and simple software with any clarity that makes sense.
• Peter Wallack mentioned he just sent a counter proposal on the list for this and would like people to comment. One of the reason we have this split is that non-programmers would be following this, but most non-programmer use an authoring tool.
• Some agreement that content should be a sub-section of the application piece.
• If we are thinking of reorganizing we may also need to determine if we are done on each provision.

WCAG 2.0 Provisions not yet discussed

• Discussion on WCAG 2.0 Provisions not yet discussed
• WCAG 2 provision accepted but missing from our latest draft to the TEITAC
• A couple of things are in the content format provision but are not in software. May have a slight mismatch.
• Andi asked Sean if he can start a discussion on the list as he finds mismatches and Sean agreed.

WCAG 2 Level A Provisions not included in Web and SW subcommittee recommendation

• 3.1.1
  • Suggestion to look at double A provision for tagging passages or phrases.
  • For accessibility, if we are going to include the language tagging requirement we would want to do it down to the double A.
  • If we do this we have to add a new provision to 6.2 content format.
  • Concern that some things may not pass and there are logistical problems.
  • If we go with the reorganization of the proposal, need to look at this carefully for applicability beyond Web pages. Provisional exception.
  • Where did we end up on this? Accept or reject?
  • At the July 25 teleconference, we agreed that we had accepted adding this provision.

• 1.3.3
  • Would this accept info that has both visual location orientation information that is also conveyed programmatically?
    • If you are conveying it programmatically somehow then it does not rely on location orientation etc.
    • May not have the right granularity.
  • No objections but some concerns:
    • org charts and diagrams.
    • may be a more natural fit in documentation support section rather then software.
    • developers reactions to the word "solely". Add an explanatory sentence that says its not the only mechanism.
  • Action item: Peter to develop a proposal for an additional explanatory sentence.
  • This is undergoing changes in WCAG now. Need to recognize that the provision is changing.

• 1.4.2
  • Why audio and not video? Thought is that it is background audio that plays when you load a page.
    • Background audio is different then a video.
    • Already a provision to turn off a video. This applies to any audio that plays, that there should be a way to stop it or turn down the volume.
    • There is a thin line between accessibility vs. usability.
  • The thought is that audio interferes with the screen reader.
  • The audio is supposed to take primacy. The user can lower the screen reader volume.
  • This applies to other disabilities. Its good that the term background is not used here and it is an important provision to have here. Someone who needs to turn it off should be able to.
  • This also covers cognitive.
  • If someone is using a cognitive aid tool it is a good user setting as well as an accessibility setting.
  • No objections to adding this one although Don Barrett is still concerned that this is usability and not accessibility.

• 2.4.3
  • This is similar to a logical tab order in Software.
  • Why do we have the condition clause at the front?
  • Order of things and forms. Going through a sequence of things was important.
  • If there is not information that is order dependent then what does it matter.
  • Thought the language was "When" a page was... Also had an objection with WCAG wording. It does not give any idea of the order things should be navigated.
  • Understanding for the qualifications up front is that its not a requirement that makes sense in many situation because its difficult to specify order with a complex visual presentation and is specifically for functions that are order specific.
  • Relationships we are looking to employ for diagram on a Web page, access keys...
  • WCAG 1.3.2 overlapss with this one... and more adequately covers what we are trying to do. This one may be older redundant language.
  • No agreement to add this to 508. WCAG group should look at overlap with WCAG 1.3.2.

Project Plan

• Reserve 10 minutes at end of call to discuss where we are on the project plan
• Reviewed items on plan. Several things to discuss on the 25th.
• Action item: Allen will start a discussion on Second Life on the list with introductory information and other info gathered from General.

New Action Items

• Peter Korn to provide a proposal for explanatory sentence on 1.3.3
• Allen Hoffman will start a discussion on Second Life on the list with introductory information and other info gathered from General.

Attendance

1. William Loughborough
2. Bruce Bailey (Access Board)
3. Peter Korn, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
4. Sharon Snider - IBM
5. Shannon Rapuano - IBM
6. Jamie Smith, FL Blind Services
7. Sean Hayes (Microsoft)
8. Amy Chen (Oracle)
9. Andi Snow-Weaver - IBM
10. Peter Wallack (Oracle)
11. Jim Allan (W3C-WAI)
12. Chris Meier
13. Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)
14. Katie Haritos-Shea
15. Terry Weaver - gsa
16. Peter Manyin (Federal Reserve Board)
17. Earl Johnson, Sun
18. Jim Elekes (Access Board)
19. Allen Hoffman DHS
20. Don Barrett
21. Eric Damery, Freedom Scientific
22. Judy Brewer (W3C/WAI)
23. Rich Schwerdtfeger
24. Robert Baker (SSA)
25. David Oyola (Ricoh Americas Corporation)