You are here: Home > TEITAC Archives > Wiki > Web and Software: July 25
Web and Software: July 25
Miscellaneous
- Clarify where we ended up on 3.1.1 - identifying the primary language of the content
- Confirmed that the group agreed to accept 3.1.1 because it was not clear from the 7/11/2007 minutes.
- Allen confirmed it was accepted and stated that double A would be discussed later.
Co-chair report from TEITAC #5
- Meetings extended to two hours each through August 15th.
- November meeting has been confirmed and there are potential dates for the January meeting. TEITAC will continue until Nov maybe until Jan.
- Platform work to be done around Software. Gregg put something together from ISO related to platforms.
- There are a few definitions to close on.
- Status of evalution of formats against provision:
- Jim stated his on HTML
- Sean not here today, nor is Andrew.
- Judy confirmed that noone has looked at SVG or Xforms yet.
- Rejected provisions moved to next week for further discussion.
- Second Life is on the agenda for 8/8, but we will open for a 5 minute discussion today.
- We need to look at the software in light of how it is applied to non-pc type of platforms. Planned discussion on 8/8.
- Economic assessment - qualitative approach is planned for discussion on August 8, 2007
- Concern that 2 weeks may not be enough. But all we have to do is state the impact as "none", "small" or "large" and provide some backup justifying our assessment.
- The economic impact assessment is based on a cross benefit analysis that includes all the stakeholders.
- Post-draft 4 work: Discussed sufficient techniques text, which is text that says...to meet this criteria here is a known set of techniques. Not the only set, but that these techniques are sufficient. People can then use the techniques with confidence. One idea is to have task groups around significant techniques for Web, SW, Authoring Tools, etc. provisions.
- Anything we can do to help assemble the material would be beneficial. This will probably need to be proposed to the TEITAC to continue with this mission.
- Anyone who wants to propose techniques should start collecting them now.
- Where TEITAC is harmonizing with WCAG, we should just refer to the WCAG sufficient techniques.
Review of action items
- 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.
- Allen Hoffman will sync provision 2 with AV group definition by next week.
- Allen will be in AV meeting this afternoon. There is still some turmoil on the definition. Hopefuly it will be laid to rest today. He is not confident the one they have now is the final.
- Peter Korn to provide a proposal for explanatory sentence on WCAG 1.3.3
- 1.3.3 Size, Shape, Location: Instructions provided for understanding and operating content do not rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of components.
- Peter will see what he can do next week.
- Allen Hoffman will start a discussion on Second Life on the list with introductory information and other info gathered from General.
- Allen will try to do by next Friday.
- This is a proprietary technology and is not based on Internet standards. We want to start on it here. It is a lower priority then other things for the next draft. We can at least start a discussion on list.
Technical Topics
Highly Visible Keyboard Focus
- Discussion
- This is strictly a provision that requires the focus indicator to be visual. We lost the concept of "well defined" that is in the current 508 wording. But "well defined" is not testable.
- Agreed at TEITAC meeting that this should be moved out of the AT interoperability section since this provision deals only with the visual requirements. Programmatic exposure is now covered in the provision on AT interoperability. Undecided on whether or not it should go in the Keyboard or Visual Display section.
- Some think the platform should provide user settings to adjust the appearance of the focus cursor. We could enumerate it in the User Preferences provision but that doesn't "require" platforms to provide it, just that apps must support it if the platform provides it.
- Concern though that the focus cursor appearance is different depending on the context of the application so can we really require apps to utilize a system setting even if one is provided?
- Some questions about implementations that would meet the provision proposed:
- A user can press the control key or other key (implementation choice) and would indicate what would have the focus. But that requires the user to potentially press the key after each action that moves the focus. Perhaps the key could be made sticky; i.e. put the system into a mode where it is highly visible all the time. Similar to the key being always held down.
- Another option is to have a "tail" sort of like the mouse pointer can have that makes it easier to track the movement.
- The "well defined" or "highly visible" focus indicator should not have to be the default as long as there is an option for it.
- No strong objections to Gregg's proposal, some support for Gregg's proposal but not enough to close this.
3.2-C - User Preferences
- Discussion
- Agreed to base the provision on Sean's proposal with the following changes:
- enumerate the attributes, including focus indicator, rather than saying "and other display attributes"
- incorporate the requirement that the user be able to achieve a 7:1 contrast ratio
- If we say the app has to support the platform setting but there's no requirement on the platform to provide the 7:1 contrast ratio, we are missing the requirement.
- Concern about what this applies to - is it the application chrome only or the fonts used to render the content?
- It depends on the settings offered by the platform. Certainly high contrast should be supported in the content rendering in addition to the GUI.
- Need to find a way to address tactile and aural settings that may be provided in the future.
- Some think it's too soon to do this since there aren't settings for these in platforms today.
- If these are defined as accessibility settings, they are already covered by another provision. Concern that, like display settings, these will not be called "accessibility" settings.
- We need a proposed provision in order to have a meaningful discussion.
- Action: Katie will write a proposal for tactile and aural.
WCAG 2.0 Provisions Not Yet Discussed (Continued from July 11)
- Level AA provisions
- General concern about adopting some of the WCAG AA provisions. In WCAG, you can make a conformance claim if you meet at least all of the Level A provisions. 508 doesn't have that concept. Having WCAG AA provisions in 508 without the levels of conformance concept is a concern.
1.4.4 Resize text
- Clarification on visual rendered text is that it is visual and not aural. WCAG defines text explicitly and excludes text in images.
- Concerns:
- structure of 508... we need to have more text in our version of the provision.
- What can you do to make a unicode character that is rendered by a browser to make it unrenderable?
- this provision is about making sure the content author authors in such a way that it can be resized. Some things can happen that cause text to overlay or become unreadable.
- Why the requirement for decreasing the size down to 50%?
- Certain types of devices may read more clearly because of the size of the screen. It does affect the order of information and the formatting.
- Support for screen enlargers.
- will need a lot of sufficient techniques to make this testable.
- The support material from WCAG might be helpful for this.
2.2.2 Blinking
- This is an easy way to provide something to address cognitive disabilities.
- Concern that there are a lot more things needed to address distractability.
- Some thought this was covered elsewhere - we have flashing and animation but nothing about blinking.
- We need to decide what the difference is between flashing and blinking.
- There is at least 3 or 4 ways to make something blink, user agents can control one of them. The author needs to provide a way/control to stop it.
- Concern as to whether this is content responsibility or content player responsibility. This should be clear, is it a browser responsibility or not?
- WCAG provides the sufficient techniques to meet this provision.
- Some in favor of accepting, some neutral, and others who are against it.
3.1.2 Language of Parts
- If language identification is important for Web content, then it is important for all content.
- General agreement to add this provision. Some think it should be combined with the other provision on identifying the primary language of the page.
Authoring Tools
Definition of authoring tools
- Andrew did raise the issue of authoring tools as a collection of components. Today's call is to discuss outstanding issues with the definition and the 4 provisions.
- No objection to taking Web out of the definition.
- Concerns:
- the word publication restricts things to much. Maybe a definition would help.
- Action Item: Peter to help with definition of "publication".
- the word "author" used to create or modify... An authoring tool that creates highly interactive content may not be covered. Suggestion to use "Authors or Software developers....
Provision 1
- Need further clarification from Andrew on his issue.
- Suggestion that "Allow the author" should be expanded to "allow an author with disabilities". Not necessary for 508 because the accessibility of the user interface is covered elsewhere in the standard. These provisions are in addition to the others.
- Intent is to replace "meets applicable ....accessibility standards." with reference to the applicable 508 section or simply refer to the 508 standard as a whole.
Provision 2
- Will make the same change with regard to referencing the 508 standard.
Provision 3
- Authoring tools should always be interoperable with evaluation tools.
- Concern about the meaning of interoperability
- Some interpret it to mean simply that the data is interoperable between the authoring and evaluation tools.
- Some interpret it to imply some kind of plug-in interface that would allow the evaluation tool to be invoked seamlessly from within the authoring tool.
- Judy will flag this concern.
Provision 4
- Same change with regard to referencing the 508 standard
- Concern with the words "more then one". Doesn't seem like there is enough choices. Maybe "more then three".
Second Life
- Proposed presentation in 2 weeks:
- Some government agencies are starting to explore using Second Life.
- Purpose is to briefly get an overview of this technology in TEITAC, discuss known accessibility problems in a 3D environment, discuss potential solutions and some that may be already in development, and determine if there is anything that can or should be done by the TEITAC to address the issues.
- Our existing provisions should cover Second Life. The discussion might be more productive if someone could review our existing language and suggest where it falls short with regard to Second Life. Intent is to do that to some degree for the presentation but it won't be a comprehensive review.
- Not expecting to do a live demo during the presentation. One idea is to do some static shots that can be described. Some people might want to get in this space and explore to get acquainted with the potential issues. Judy will send out a link for how to get on Second Life.
New Action Items
- Katie Haritos-Shea to write a proposal for tactile and aural user preferences.
- Peter Korn to help with the definition of "publication" used in the definition of Authoring Tools.
Attendance
- William Loughborough
- Tom Brett
- Sharon Snider - IBM
- Eric Damery, Freedom Scientific
- Andi Snow-Weaver - IBM
- Shannon Rapuano - IBM
- Matt May (Adobe)
- Peter Wallack (Oracle)
- Michele Budris, Sun Microsystems, Inc
- Jamie Smith, Florida Blind
- Peter Korn, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
- Angela Hooker
- Michael Cooper, W3C
- Allen Hoffman DHS
- Amy Chen (Oracle)
- Jim Allan (W3C)
- Katie Haritos-Shea
- Rich Schwerdtfeger
- Don Barrett
- Blene Bekure
- David Oyola (Ricoh Americas Corporation)
- Earl Johnson, Sun
- Judy Brewer (W3C/WAI)
- Earl Johnson [Sun]
- Chris Meier
Advertisements
WebAIM is an initiative of:
