TEITAC July 6th EWG Draft Review

**Alex Li**\
**Accessibility Policies and Standards Manager, SAP AG**

**July 2007**

Graphical View of the Structure

**The proposed structure is essentially a decision tree or flowchart.
This is how developers think.**

\[Flowchart picture. Box 1.1 (Functional Performance Criteria) feeds to
box 1.2 (General Technical Requirements), which feeds to decision
diamond 2.1 Hardware? If "Yes," feeds to box 2.1 (All products with
hardware) which then meets back at "No" response for diamond 2.1. Next
is decision diamond 2.2, Physical Control? If "Yes," feed to box 2.2
(Mechanical Controls) which then meets back at "No" response for diamond
2.2.\]

But the New Structure Surfaces Some Fundamental Issues

· ** There are no provisions in the structure for the negative
conditions**

**· Identical provisions in different parts of the structure suggest
that the structure is not properly formed**

**· Multiple related or similar provisions in different parts of the
structure suggest further structural logic problems**

**· Some provisions do not seem to apply to products where they are
expected to apply**

·

·

· Only requires the provision when the condition is positive

· **There is no provision when the condition is negative. Thus, the
structure is very vulnerable to logical mistakes. Perhaps, in some
situations, nothing needs to be done if the condition is negative. But
it is not universal and examination should be made.**

· \[Flowchart picture illustrating point that no action when answers to
questions (3.2, Visual Output or Display? 3.3, Keyboard?) is "No".\]

·

·

· Revised Structure Should Consider Negative Conditions

· \[Revised flowchart picture showing new boxes labeled "3.2 +
Provisions for Software Without Visual Output or Display" and "3.3 +
Provisions for Software Without Keyboard Interfaces".\]

·

·

· Duplication and Internal Inconsistency

· **Duplicative provisions can be found in two forms. **

· First, some are exact duplications---suggesting potential flaws in
structural logic

· For example, Timing provisions of software (3.1B) and web (6.1C) are
essentially identical. Thus, these provisions should be placed in more
general part of the structure where software, web, and perhaps others
products should apply. Alternatively, the division between web and
software may be in question.

·

·

· Duplication and Internal Inconsistency

· **Second, Some are not exact duplications---suggesting a potential
inconsistency within the current provisions and potential flaws in
structural logic**

**· For example, following provisions are related to contrast for
software.**

**· 1.1-C -- With Color Vision Deficits: At least one mode must be
provided that allows comparable access to product with color vision
deficits.**

**· 1.2-I -- Contrast: Contrast is currently split out between software
and hardware. If this approach is successful, then this placeholder
provision will be deleted.**

**· 3.1-C -- Software as platform and application: expose the underlying
platform\'s color, contrast, and other individual display settings to
applications running within its platform, so that these applications can
meet the User Preferences provision.**

**· 3.2-A -- Contrast: When a product permits a user to adjust color and
contrast settings, at least one color selection capable of producing a
minimum luminosity contrast ratio of 7:1 must be provided.**

**· 3.2-C -- User Preferences: Applications must utilize user selected
contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes
when the availability of those selections are developed and documented
according to industry standards.**

**· 6.1-B -- Contrast: 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.**

·

·

· Previous Applicable Provisions Seem No Longer Applicable

· **One primary form of omission is due to the structural arrangement in
which previously applicable provisions are placed under conditions where
they no longer apply. This indicate a flaw in the structure logic in
which the "IF statement" is not properly formed. In other words, the
structure may not be asking the right question.**

**· For example: Part 3 (Software), 6.1 (Web), and 6.2 (Content Format)
contain provisions that are not consistently applied.**

· 'Web applications', 'web sites', and 'content format' must provide
text equivalents for all non-text content, but 'software' does not need
to.

· 'Web applications' and 'web sites' must provide consistent
identification of components, but 'software' only requires this of
bitmaps

· 'Content format' must provide a mechanism to include data used for
dynamic presentations, graphs, etc., but 'Software', 'Web Applications',
and 'Web Sites' do not need to provide a mechanism for the user to
invoke