W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

(unknown charset) RE 1.2-.13

From: (unknown charset) Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 05:26:29 -0500
To: (unknown charset) <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c120bd$c283a640$066fa8c0@750>

My comment wasn’t that audio description needed to be a separate point.
Just that audio description was no longer required by the current

Here is a longer treatment along with a suggestion for fixing it.


Checkpoint 1.2
Synchronize media equivalents with time-dependent presentations.

This checkpoint is currently broken as written

The checkpoint asks for Equivalents to be Synchronized  -- but it does
not require that any be provided other than what is required in 1.1.
"Synchronize media equivalents with time-dependent presentations."

The first CRITERIA however requires audio equivalents be provided.  It
doesn’t say anything about synchronization.

*** A FIX -- Change the checkpoint to read
"PROVIDE AND sychronize media equivalents with time-dependent
"PROVIDE sychronized media equivalents with time-dependent

Then the success criteria WOULD PASS the test for Necessary and
Sufficient to meet the new checkpoint.   And audio description would be


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:44 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Agenda

Thursday, 9 August, 20 Hours UTC, on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge:
+1-617-252-1038, with the following agenda:

1. Combining old checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 (i.e., whether "auditory
   descriptions" should occupy a separate checkpoint as Gregg has

2. Checkpoint 2.1 (revised text as in forthcoming draft).

3. Whether checkpoint 4.1 is redundant (discussed at the close of last
   week's meeting).

4. Any other issues that need to be resolved before the draft is
   released publicly via the TR page.

Issues involving major changes, or which are highly controversial,
should be postponed until the working draft has been made available
for public review.
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 06:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC