RE: Coments - last call draft (design forward first?)

Thanks Al, this is useful input. I am drafting a longer response on the
issue of defining UA Behavior that I expect to send this evening or
tomorrow. However, in the mean time, I want to point out that it was NOT
a requirement for AFXP or DFXP that it be delivered to a user agent. In
particular, the system model for TTAF does not include a user agent;
rather, it posits a subsequent transformation process to an actual
distribution format that is wedded to a UA. At the same time, neither
AFXP nor DFXP are precluded from direct distribution, nor from direct
presentation by a UA; on the other hand, the task of defining such a
usage was not included in the requirements, and is, at present,
considered to be largely out of scope for the current chartered work.

Regards,
Glenn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Gilman [mailto:Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:40 AM
> To: public-tt@w3.org
> Cc: Charles McCathieNevile
> Subject: Re: Coments - last call draft (design forward first?)
> 
> 
> At 11:46 AM +1000 3/31/05, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >1. Meeting requirements
> >
> >[[[
> >
> >It is intended that a more feature-rich profile, known presently as
> >the Authoring Format Exchange Profile (AFXP), be developed and
> >published to address the full set of documented requirements.
> >
> >]]]
> >
> >Is there any concrete reason to believe this will take place? The
> >group has had its charter extended already, just to produce this
> >restricted draft. Is the group working on this more complete version
> >already? Or is this just a hope?
> 
>  From an accessibility perspective, the following are not unreasonable
> to expect:
> 
> 1 [constraint] The DFXP, if processed through disability-adaptive
> presentation transforms, must achieve a functional user experience.
> 
> 2. [preference] The DFXP should contain, fully modeled, all the
> information in the AFXP needed for deriving alternate look and feel
> bindings adaptive for diverse people with disabilities [not just
> sighted, Deaf people].
> 
> 2 [prognosis] Deriving disability-adaptive look and feel from the
> AFXP will produce more usable user experiences than deriving
> disability-adaptive look and feel from the DFXP, given the current
> order of freezing the profiles.
> 
> 3 [prognosis] Experience with disability-adaptive alternative
> presentations of AFXP content will make clear places where we should
> have done things differently in the DFXP.
> 
> So some concern about the freezing of the DFXP to a PR before
> completing the CR experience with the AFXP is natural from an
> accessibility perspective.
> 
> In terms of meeting requirements, the possibly under-explored use
> case is one where the DFXP is delivered directly to a player (User
> Agent) running on a Customer Premises Equipment computer -- is the
> display and control of the text stream suitably adaptable in this
> case?
> 
> Al
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 15:02:04 UTC