W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Input needed before next AUWG call

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:42:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4BABA093.2060503@utoronto.ca>
To: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>
CC: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Greg,

Thanks for giving this a thorough review....

What about dropping changing the language away from "alternative" as 
follows:

B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of
producing an *excluded web content technology* for publishing, then both
of the following are true (Level A):
(a) Warning: authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide
accessibility support for that web content technology.
(b) List Included Technologies: from the warning, authors can access a 
list of technologies for which the authoring tool does provide
accessibility support (i.e., the *included web content technologies*).


Then there is no presumption that the tool can second-guess the 
author...they are simply providing information to explain a warning.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Jan





On 25/03/2010 7:32 AM, Greg Pisocky wrote:
> My replies within
>
> Greg Pisocky, Adobe Systems
> gpisocky@adobe.com
> 703.883.2810p | 703.883.2850f | 703.678.3541m
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jan Richards
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:47 PM
>> To: WAI-AUWG List
>> Subject: Input needed before next AUWG call
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here are the questions again that need answers this week (with more
>> specific links for (2) and (3). ALSO an extra paragraph has been added
>> on Jutta's suggestion to the intent for B.2.2.7 so please take a look:
>>
>> (1) B.2.1.1 Decision Support Proposal
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0126.html
>> ___Accept the proposal
>> X Recommend changes (see comments field)
>> ___The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
>> ___Disagree with the proposal
>> ___Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
>> Comments:[GGP:]  I like this proposal my concern is around the timing of said warning, "when the option to save is presented" that represents one possible scenario. Is the emphasis to be on some sort of mechanism that informs the user what the tool is capable of doing with various formats or how it informs them? In the example provided, let's suppose after toiling away on some piece of content our intrepid user chooses to launch the built in caption editor. At that time they are informed that the captions they edit with the tool's built in editor will be lost should the user choose to later save the result as format A, B, but preserved for any of the other available options. If so, I am okay.
>
> What is nagging at me is the implication that format X is a better choice than format Y because of the tool's ability to provide an additional accessibility attribute for format X. Maybe format X is a low definition format that only works with a limited number of players. Format Y might be more appropriate given the intended workflow creating content targeted for high definition players. To require the software to suggest using format X as the alternative to Y because this particular tool can add captions to X and not Y undermines the developer's intent which is to produce content appropriate for play on high definition players.
>
> So now I think I have worked this through in my mind (sorry to drag everyone through my slow train of thought, but I am sensitive to workflows). What bothers me is this notion that the tool needs to suggest an alternative.  And I quote "if a similar *included technology* is available, then it is suggested as an alternative."
>
> A tool can't possibly know about the author's ultimate intent to suggest that the so called "more accessible choice" is the correct alternative. That isn't always the case given that tools that manipulate source formats are not always suitable for manipulating all of the attributes.
>
> Can we eliminate the language that implies that the others are better and replace it with language that addresses is the issue of what may be gained or lost given all of the alternatives available to developers using the tool?
>
>>
>> 2-B.2.2.6 Status Report: Reworded Intent and Examples
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0135.html
>> _X_[GGP:]  Accept the proposal
>> ___Recommend changes (see comments field)
>> ___The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
>> ___Disagree with the proposal
>> ___Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
>> Comments:
>>
>> 3-B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Reworded Intent and Examples
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0136.html
>> _X  Accept the proposal
>> ___Recommend changes (see comments field)
>> ___The proposal needs more discussion (see comments field)
>> ___Disagree with the proposal
>> ___Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
>> Comments:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
>> jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060
>>
>> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
>> Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
>
>

-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060

Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 17:43:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 March 2010 17:43:32 GMT