Web and Software: May 9

Miscellaneous

• Minutes approved from May 2, 2007.

Review of action items

1. IN PROCESS: Gregg Vanderheiden, Curtis Chong, Sean Hayes, Don Barrett, Earl Johnson to continue to refine the keyboard proposal for the Web requirements.
   • Current WCAG 2.0 wording: All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.
     • Note: This exception relates to the underlying function, not the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path dependent input but the underlying function (text input) does not.
     • Note: This does not forbid and should not discourage providing mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation.
   • Discussed briefly on the call and there were no issues. Andi will post it to the mailing list.
2. IN PROCESS: Allen Hoffman will work on language and platform issues as a starting point for applets and plugins. Discussion started on the mailing list.
3. 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.
4. CLOSED: Peter Korn to suggest an alternative for "2 dimensional display of information" language in provision 4 of the content proposal.
   • Final wording: A content format shall provide an encoding mechanism to indicate a logical linear reading order of all content contained within it.
     • Suggestion to change "all content" to "all readable content" and add "at any point and time" to the end.
     • What are we talking about when we say content format? Content maybe coming from different places within one window. Can someone explain?
     • Issue going further without Allen and Peter on the call. This was addressed because Peter had an issue with the wording.
     • Flash is a content format. Content formats do not always provide a mechanism to read the logical reading order in a linear fashion on how the code is implemented. XML and HTML are linear. Not sure about PDF, but it does have somewhat of a linear content.
     • Currently have a requirement for authors, this is a mechanism to require a reading order. There are some challenges in this standard that might imply that there needs to be a mechanism in a logical linear reading order by the order of the tree. Interpretation by the browser also determines the content format if it is honored.
     • Question related to a difference depending on the level of content, such as an encoding mechanism with characters. Suggestion to drop the word "encoding". Then the wording would meet this in either case.
     • Suggestion that maybe programmatically determined is what should be used here and in other places along with its definition. Has to be something in the mechanism that the AT can deal with. Discussed different areas that programmatically determinable may or maynot apply.
     • In a content format that is free formed and has to be a way AT can handle. This is a global statement that needs to be applied to all formats. It has to be accessible to AT and needs to be available to the user agent as well. Not necessarily a requirement of the content format. Rather the content can store that information and used by the proper tools. This applies to any layout with multiple columns as well as text with images.
     • Reworded: A content format shall provide an encoding mechanism to indicate a logical linear reading order of the content.
     • Still concern that a lot of people have a hard time that there is not an encoding mechanism in html. Suggest rewording with ...programmatically determined, along with a global definition. Even if the user agent makes it programmatically determined the combination of tools determine it.
     • reword to add: ....that can be programmatically determined.
5. 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.
6. CLOSED: Gregg Vanderheiden will rewrite 1194.22(j), so it is easier to understand.
   • WCAG 2.0 current wording: Content does not contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period, or the flash is below the general flash threshold and the red flash threshold. There is a Tool that defines the threshold formula, but as long as you don’t have more then 3 flashes formula is not needed. Based on Graham Harding's work in UK and the standards used there.
   • New wording posted to the list. No objections.
     • Andi considering this closed and this is the wording we'll adopt. Minor edit - Threshold should only be in one place.
7. Andi Snow-Weaver will go back through and look for inconsistent language related to AT.
8. CLOSED: Judy Brewer will look into presentation and presenter from ATAG and post a note to the list to ask for input to solicit feedback for presentation content. Presentation will be May 16th.
   • Presenter requested that slides are made available a week ahead of time. Slides will be sent to the list tomorrow. Must subscibre to the list to get attachments.
9. 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.
   • They have not discussed anything, but Sean has started to raise the issue. Original concern was calling things accessibility with regard to display attributes and calling them accessibility setting or features. We need to come up with terminology to capture what we want to capture.
   • Not being accessibility features, they fall out of regulation, but accessibility called out causes other issues. Goal is to say documented as an accessibility feature... list features that can be used for people with disabilities. Question is how does an application know where the list is? Stuck trying to make it not to narrow and not to wide.

Technical Topics

Subpart A consideration raised by Allen

• No discussion because Allen is not present.

Graphical text used as navigation components

• IE6 will support this if the html is encoded correctly and it seems like something that IE7 makes easier. This is something that may not be needed. Most browsers will have this capability in the next year or so. Already supported in 2 browsers and another one coming soon. It is being solved in the user agent.
• May want to consider a recommendation or advisory that discusses how its implemented. We shouldn't require something if everyone is already doing it, but it would be good to have a mechanism for best practices for people who are doing new implementations.
• Strange we have requirements on contrast, but not resolution which are important for readability. Authoring guidelines can include info on scaling.
• WCAG 2 applies to text, but not images of text. The provision talks about content with enlarged fonts. Is there a way in the user agent to make the text bigger without running all over itself. Considerations:
  • Make sure your content is scalable.
  • If your technology has its own user agent it has to support that font change or use the one thats built into the OS.
• May be a hole in WCAG 2 treating text and images of text differently. Could use image if read by OCR with characters that could be understood. Need to revisit WCAG definition of text.
• WCAG 2 treats contrast the same, but scaling is treated differently at level 2 then at level 3. Level 2 requires that things wrap. level 2 is zoom for scaling but the technique that it wrap will not work for images of text. It was suggested they not be the same for the benefit of people with low vision. Zooming and wrapping behave differently and should be treated differently.
• Conclude that we may not need to add this provision because it is covered by a user agent. Action item: Sean will develop a provision that we can propose on resolution.

Contrast provisions

• Current WCAG 2.0 wording: Text (and images of text) have a contrast ratio of at least 5:1, except if the text is pure decoration. Larger-scale text or images of text can have a contrast ratio of 3:1.
  • Recommend this for 508, any issues?
  • There is a tool that does this now that also works on images as well as text. Tool works with mouse or enter as hex, or rgb. Greg will post who is doing this to the list.
  • Difficult testing may discourage people from using complex backgrounds. It's when text is over a background that changes when it becomes difficult with lots of patterns, stripes and backgrounds.
  • Andi will put this into the next draft.

Remote Access

• A dumb terminal is a closed product and it will fail all software compatibility. Trying to figure out if they bundled the software and it was part of what you purchased if it would past. We should capture this in our language. May be included in subpart A. Selling the software later it would not be accessible. Should we put a provision in that allows for this? Subpart A? We need it to be sure things don't pass without it.
• If the information is bundled in the product than it covers the whole product. If its not bundled then there is a way to answer the VPAT that is not misleading. This can be used along with supporting software on a ... platform. Nothing additional needed in technical provision or subpart A. This is just one of many things that people need to understand.
• This is not something that can be solved with a provision, but needs to be done at the package level. We should capture this as an issue.

New Action Items

• Sean will develop a provision that we can propose on resolution. This was discussed as part of the "Graphical text used as navigation components" discussion.

Attendance

1. Tom Brett
2. Katie Haritos-Shea
3. Greg Fields (Research in Motion)
4. Sharon Snider - IBM
5. Blene Bekure (LMIT)
6. Sean Hayes (Microsoft)
7. Chris Meier
8. Bruce Bailey (Access Board)
9. Luke Kowalski (Oracle)
10. Chuck Letourneau (Industry Canada alt.)
11. Jamie Smith, FL Blind Services
12. William Loughborough
13. Jan Richards (ATRC)
14. Ken Kipnes
15. Richard Schwertfeger - IBM
16. Nick Truesdell (IRS)
17. Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)
18. Andi Snow-Weaver - IBM
19. Alex Li (SAP)
20. Jim Elekes (Access Board)
21. Angela Hooker
22. Greg Van
23. Amy Chen (Oracle)
24. Judy Brewer