Re: PFWG comments on Web Notifications

Thank you for your responses to the comments received from the Protocols
and Formats Working Group. The view of the WG is inline below.

On 05/12/2013 8:50 PM, Jon Lee wrote:
> [This is a draft WG reply to the PFWG's last call comments. Comments
> on the proposed resolution are welcome; if no one objects in a week’s
> time, this will be the WG’s official response to his comment. -Jon]
>
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org
> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>> Below are two comments from the Protocols and Formats Working Group
>> on Web Notifications Last Call Working Draft of 22 September 2013
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/. PFWG approval
>> to send these comments is archived at
>> https://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-pf-minutes.html#item04 (Member-only
>> link right now, should become public in a week).
>>
>> Comment 1
>>
>> 4.2states - The notification
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/#concept-notification>'s language
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/#language> specifies
>> the primary language for the notification
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/#concept-notification>'s title
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/#title> and body
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/#body>. Its
>> value is a valid BCP 47 language tag, or the empty string. The empty
>> string indicates that the primary language is unknown. [LANG]
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-notifications-20130912/#refsLANG>"
>>
>> We should add a Note to state that if the primary language is unknown
>> this would be a WCAG violation.
>
> Software often interacts with, transmits, and presents text
> without knowing which human languages are used in the text.
> Notification services frequently utilize this text to inform the user
> (e.g., that the user has received a new email), so we can't
> expect software to know the human languages used in notification text.
> We shouldn't require software to do something we're certain it can't
> accomplish.
We understand this issue but also consider it important since the spec
expressly permits a null language notification. We suggest this softened
text to alert implementers: "Note that while the language may be unknown
to the system, leaving it unset will create problems for some users."
>
>> Comment 2
>>
>> The API specifies the ability to supply an icon without the ability
>> to specify any text alternative for the icon. We need an ability to
>> provide alternative content for the icon. Given that notifications
>> are created in JS more or less in real time, a plain string is enough
>> (assuming that the internationalisation story is 
>> really correct).
>
> Please see prior discussion [1]. The icon’s purpose is decorative and
> provides no additional information. We should consider an editorial
> change to make this clearer.
In the prior discussion you reference, we note that Artur Ortega
provided counter-examples for how, notwithstanding the intent of the
specification developers, these icons are often used to convey meaning.
It appears that comment was not addressed and we support and echo it.
While your intent may be for the icon to be purely decorative, we
believe authors will use it in other ways and think it would be
important for the spec to make it possible for authors to provide
alternative text in such circumstances.

For the PFWG,
Michael Cooper, staff contact
>
> ===
>
> Please let us know promptly whether this response satisfies your
> comments and suggestions.
>
> Jon
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-notification/2012Jul/0007.html

-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>