W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > October 2005

Re: Your comments on GL 2.5 Level 2 SC 1 guide doc

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:08:36 -0500
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Cc: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8B0A0814.EC65566B-ON86257098.00633996-86257098.0063AA64@us.ibm.com>

Thanks Christophe. I really would like to remove that phrase "in text"
because I think you should be able to do it any way that is accessible
(i.e. meets all applicable guidelines). If you use non-text content, then
you could simply provide a text alternative. But the text alternative would
also meet this success criterion so maybe it doesn't matter and is not
worth the effort it would take to get consensus on this.

Andi



                                                                           
             Christophe                                                    
             Strobbe                                                       
             <christophe.strob                                          To 
             be@esat.kuleuven.         Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM@IBMUS   
             be>                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             10/12/2005 11:55                                      Subject 
             AM                        Re: Your comments on GL 2.5 Level 2 
                                       SC 1 guide doc                      
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Andi,

At 18:09 12/10/2005, you wrote:
>Christophe,
>
>With regard to your feedback on our guide doc [1]
>
><cs>
>VoiceXML applications don't describe errors in "text" but in speech
>(preferably synthesized speech so that there is text available somewhere
if
>there should be a system for deaf users to access VoiceXML applications).
>Maybe the SC should read: "If an input error is detected, the error is
>identified and described to the user in the same modality that is used for
>labels, prompts and other guidance in the form/interaction."
>Writing VoiceXML techniques for this SC should be easy (VoiceXML has
>noinput , nomatch and reprompt elements) but is low priority; they could
go
>to the "boneyard" for GL 2.5.
></cs>
>
>If the VoiceXML application is using synthesized speech, then the errors
>are described in text aren't they? They just happen to be rendered by a
>speech synthesis engine.

Yes, but the errors are not sent as characters. If we allow synthesised
speech as text, how does this SC disallow the live generation of images
containing the text of the error? Of course, GL 1.1 kicks in for both
cases.

>And if the application is using recorded speech
>for errors, then it would have to provide a text alternative in order to
>meet GL 1.1. In either case, if the application is being rendered by an AT
>for deaf users, the text is there isn't it?

Yes (although I'm not aware of the existence of such applications).

>So is this really a problem?

Probably not.
Now that you make me think a little bit harder, I see another way around
it:
GL 4.2 L1 SC1. Providing textual interaction for deaf users as an
alternative
to synthesised speech is really providing an alternate form.
Whichever solution we choose (treat synthesised speech as text or refer
to GL 4.2 L1 SC1), it is worthwhile recording it. I'll add it to the
document on WCAG & VoiceXML, which will be discussed by the VoiceXML Forum
Accessibility Committee.


>If you still think it's a problem, we thought your suggested wording was a
>little verbose and came up with an alternative suggestion. We could
propose
>changing the SC to "If an input error is detected, the error is identified
>and described to the user." Would this resolve the issue?

I'm a little bit surprised about the removal of "in text" because it allows
the description of errors with non-text content. The rewording is wider
than
the original text but I think it's OK because GL 1.1 kicks in for non-text
content.

Bottom line: any of the solutions you propose is valid. If you'd rather not
change the GL 2.5 success criterion, that's OK.

Regards,

Christophe Strobbe


>[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/teamc-2/results
>
>Andi
>andisnow@us.ibm.com
>IBM Accessibility Center
>(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
>Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo

--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 18:09:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:47 GMT