W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Comments on the UAAG (28 Jan 00 Version)

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:00:17 -0500
Message-ID: <38BF38D1.7617E93B@w3.org>
To: Eric Hansen <ehansen7@hotmail.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, ehansen@ets.org
Eric Hansen wrote:
> 
> Date: 18 February 2000
> To: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines List
> From: Eric Hansen
> Re: Comments on the User Agent Accessibility
> Guidelines 1.0 (28 January 2000 Candidate
> Recommendation)
> 
> The document seems to read quite well.
> 
> Following are a few comments. These comments
> attempt to reconcile and harmonize this document
> with the other documents (Web Content and Authoring
> Tools).

Thank you Eric,

My comments preceded by IJ:
 
> ====
> Part 1: Issues Regarding Collated Text Transcripts
> and Text Transcripts
> 
> Comment #1: Checkpoint 2.6 overlooks collated text
> transcripts for movies and animations.
> 
> Importance: Essential
> 
> Collated text transcripts cannot be left out.
> Refer to the more generic "presentations" rather
> than "tracks" since standalone audio files are
> included.
> Note. I wonder if one should make explicit that the
> text transcripts in checkpoint 2.6 refer to audio
> presentations rather than to auditory tracks.
> Perhaps it is best left unstated at this stage so
> that it could refer to both, where both might be
> supplied.
> 
> Old:
> 
> "2.6 Allow the user to specify that text
> transcripts, captions, and auditory descriptions be
> rendered at the same time as the associated
> auditory and visual tracks. [Priority 1]
> "Note. Respect synchronization cues during
> rendering."
> 
> New:
> 
> "2.6 Allow the user to specify that text
> transcripts, collated text transcripts, captions,
> and auditory descriptions be rendered at the same
> time as the associated auditory and visual
> presentations. [Priority 1]
> "Note. Respect synchronization cues during
> rendering."

IJ:
At the 2 March telconf [1], the Working Group decided to adopt
your wording (refer to issue #204). Part of the rationale
for adopting the proposal now was that adding collated text transcripts
did not seem to be any more burdensome than the existing requirement
to support captions.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0424.html
[2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#204

> ====
> 
> Comment #2: Lack of requirement for synchronized
> presentation of collated text transcripts.
> 
> Importance: Important
> 
> Note. This issue is important to address now and to
> decide one way or the other.
> 
> I note that the document does nothing to assert
> that the user agent must allow users to present a
> collated text transcript that is synchronized with
> the auditory and visual tracks. Checkpoint 1.4 of
> WCAG 1.0 suggests an a requirement such a
> capability since a collated text transcript is an
> important and required equivalent alternative ("1.4
> For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a
> movie or animation), synchronize equivalent
> alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory
> descriptions of the visual track) with the
> presentation. [Priority 1] ").
> 
> But I am not sure how and if WCAG has resolved this
> issue.
> 
> However, unless the UA document explicitly requires
> the option of synchronized presentation of the
> collated text transcript, user agents will not
> generally not provide it.
> 
> If it were determined that WCAG checkpoint 1.4 also
> includes collated text transcripts, then UA
> checkpoint 2.6 might read something like the
> following:
> 
> New -- Taking into account synchronized collated
> text transcripts:
> 
> "2.6 Allow the user to specify that text
> transcripts, collated text transcripts (both
> unsynchronized and synchronized), captions, and
> auditory descriptions be rendered at the same time
> as the associated auditory and visual
> presentations. [Priority 1]
> "Note. Respect synchronization cues during
> rendering."
> 
> If it were determined that Priority 1 is too high
> for synchronized collated text transcripts, then
> one break it out into two checkpoints:
> 
> "2.6A Allow the user to specify that text
> transcripts, collated text transcripts, captions,
> and auditory descriptions be rendered at the same
> time as the associated auditory and visual
> presentations. [Priority 1]
> "Note. Respect synchronization cues during
> rendering."
> 
> "2.6B Allow the user to specify that collated text
> transcripts be synchronized with the auditory and
> visual tracks. [Priority 2 <or 3>]
> "Note. Respect synchronization cues during
> rendering."
> 
> An stated in earlier memos, the point of the
> synchronized collated text transcript is to make
> movies accessible to many who have low vision
> and/or hardness of hearing.

IJ: 
  Is there any reason to put "both synchronized and
  unsynchronized" in the checkpoint? Can that be left
  part of the definition of collated text transcript?


IJ: The WG adopted this proposal at the 2 March teleconf.

> ====
> 
> Comment #3: Checkpoint 4.8 overlooks text
> transcripts for audio clips and collated text
> transcripts for movies and animations.
> 
> Importance: Essential
> 
> Old:
> 
> "4.8 Allow the user to configure the position of
> captions on graphical displays. [Priority 1]
> Techniques for checkpoint 4.8"
> 
> New:
> 
> "4.8 Allow the user to configure the position of
> captions, text transcripts, and collated text
> transcripts on graphical displays. [Priority 1]
> Techniques for checkpoint 4.8"

IJ: The WG did not discuss this at the 2 March teleconference.
   However, using the same logic applied at the teleconference
   (that there is no extra burden on UAs - these are just
    additional types of text equivalents), I think that
    this change also makes sense and I would support it.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #4: Fix the definition of text transcript
> 
> Importance: Essential
> 
> Old:
> 
> "Text transcript"
> "A text transcript is a text equivalent of audio
> information (e.g., an auditory track). It provides
> text for both spoken words and non-spoken sounds
> such as sound effects. Text transcripts make
> presentations accessible to people who are deaf-
> blind (they may be rendered as Braille) and to
> people who cannot play movies, animations, etc.
> Transcripts may be generated on the fly (e.g., by
> speech-to-text converters). Refer also to
> captions."
> 
> New:
> 
> "Text Transcript"
> "A text transcript is a text equivalent of audio
> information (e.g., an audio presentation or the
> auditory track of a movie or animation). It
> provides text for both spoken words and non-spoken
> sounds such as sound effects. Text transcripts make
> audio information accessible to people who have
> hearing disabilities and to people who cannot play
> the audio. Text transcripts are usually pre-written
> but may be generated on the fly (e.g., by speech-
> to-text converters). Refer also to _captions_ and
> _collated text transcript_"

IJ:
You defined "audio presentation" in an earlier email [1], but this
definition does not appear in the document or your current proposal.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0752.html

 
> ====
> 
> Comment #5: Add the definition of collated text
> transcript.
> 
> Importance: Essential
> 
> Following is a short definition. It could be more
> extensive if necessary.
> 
> "Collated Text Transcript"
> 
> "A collated text transcript is a text equivalent of
> a movie or animation. More specifically, it is a
> collation of the text transcript of the auditory
> track and the text equivalent of the visual track.
> For example, a collated text transcript typically
> includes segments of spoken dialogue interspersed
> with text descriptions of the key visual elements
> of a presentation (actions, body language,
> graphics, and scene changes). See also _text
> transcript_ and _auditory description_.

IJ: Sounds good to me.
 
> ====
> Part 2: Other Comments
> 
> Comment #6: Clarify checkpoint 2.2.
> 
> Importance: Important
> 
> I think that the scope and meaning of this
> checkpoint needs to be better defined. What are
> examples of  "presentations that require user
> interaction within a specified time interval"? 

IJ: For example, a SMIL presentation in which links
    in the same place on the screen designate different
    targets as the presentation advances. 

> It
> seems that solutions such as "allowing the user to
> pause and restart the presentation, to slow it
> down" are relevant to a lot of time-based
> presentations. Why does this "configuration"
> capability only encompass "presentations that
> require user interaction within a specified time
> interval"?
> 
> "2.2 For presentations that require user
> interaction within a specified time interval, allow
> the user to configure the time interval (e.g., by
> allowing the user to pause and restart the
> presentation, to slow it down, etc.). [Priority 1]"

IJ: I think this needs to be discussed by the WG.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #7: Fix the introduction for Guideline 2.
> 
> Importance: Important
> 
> The second paragraph has several problems. Here it
> is :
> 
> "Access to content requires more than mode
> redundancy. For dynamic presentations such as
> synchronized multimedia presentations created with
> SMIL 1.0 [SMIL], users with cognitive, hearing,
> visual, and physical disabilities may not be able
> to interact with a presentation within the time
> delays assumed by the author. To make the
> presentation accessible to these users, user agents
> rendering synchronized presentations must either
> provide access to content in a time-independent
> manner or allow users to configure the playback
> rate of the presentation."
> 
> Problems:
> 
> a. The first sentence implies that a list of
> requirements will follow, but such a list does not
> seem to follow.

IJ: Ok.
 
> b. The following phrase seems inaccurate.
> 
> "To make the presentation accessible to these
> users, user agents rendering synchronized
> presentations must either provide access to content
> in a time-independent manner or allow users to
> configure the playback rate of the presentation."
> 
> At least for audio clips, movies, and animations,
> isn't it the case that they need to do _both_, not
> just one or the other? Text transcripts and
> collated text transcripts provide access to content
> a _time-independent manner_ (see checkpoint 2.1).
> And checkpoint 4.5 allows _slowing_ of audio,
> movies, and animations. Checkpoint 4.6 Allow the
> user to start, stop, pause, advance, and rewind
> audio, video, and animations.
> 
> c. Nothing in guideline 2 seems to refer to a
> general capability of allowing the user to
> "configure the playback rate". Checkpoint 2.2
> refers only the narrow case of "presentations that
> require user interaction within a specified time
> interval". By the way, if some more general
> capability for control over playback is desired
> (beyond checkpoints 4.5, 4.6, and 2.2), then
> someone should ensure that those capabilities
> exist.
> 
> Again, I suppose that the key to understanding this
> intro paragraph is making sure what is intended by
> checkpoint 2.2. Clarifying the meaning of
> checkpoint 2.2 might help rewrite this paragraph.

IJ: I agree.

> ====
> 
> Comment #8: Disambiguate checkpoints 4.5 and 4.9.
> 
> Importance: Low to Moderate
> 
> Checkpoints 4.5 and 4.9 seem to overlap. Isn't
> synthesized speech also "audio"? This may be minor
> problem, just not as clear as I'd like to see it.

IJ: 
 1) The WG wanted to distinguish these requirements for speech.
 2) And the WG considered that the key requirement of 4.5 was  
    the ability to slow, whereas for 4.9, one might also
    want to speed up.
 
> "Checkpoints for multimedia: "
> "4.5 Allow the user to slow the presentation rate
> of audio, video, and animations. [Priority 1]"
> "Techniques for checkpoint 4.5"
> ?.
> "Checkpoints for synthesized speech: "
> "4.9 Allow the user to configure synthesized speech
> playback rate. [Priority 1]"
> 
> ====
> 
> Comment #9: Fix checkpoint 5.1 regarding write
> access to DOM.
> 
> Importance: Unknown
> 
> The idea of "write" access to content raises a red
> flag, making a DOM novice like me wonder if such a
> requirement belongs in the AU guidelines rather
> than the UA guidelines. It also seems strange to
> refer readers to two DOM documents. This suggests
> that there is no easy and reliable way to address
> this checkpoint.
> 
> "5.1 Provide programmatic read and write access to
> content by conforming to W3C Document Object Model
> (DOM) specifications and exporting interfaces
> defined by those specifications. [Priority 1]"
> "For example, refer to DOM Levels 1 and 2 ([DOM1],
> [DOM2]). User agents should export these interfaces
> using available operating system conventions."
> "Techniques for checkpoint 5.1"
> 
> I note that there seems to be a lot of discussion
> on this issue on the list. I don't think I have any
> more light to throw on the subject.

IJ:
Please refer to the resolutions of issues 205 [1] and 190 [2].
In short, the WG decided to include a read-only DOM requirement
and a write requirement for that which can be done through the
UI. Also, the WG decided to refer specifically to these DOM
Level 2 Modules: core, html, and css (a new P3 checkpoint).


[1] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#205
[2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#190
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #10: Fix checkpoint 5.2.
> 
> Importance: Unknown
> 
> Checkpoint 5.2 also refers to "write" access. For
> some reason it doesn't seem as much of an issue
> here. Here is the language.
> 
> "5.2 Provide programmatic read and write access to
> user agent user interface controls using standard
> APIs (e.g., platform-independent APIs such as the
> W3C DOM, standard APIs for the operating system,
> and conventions for programming languages, plug-
> ins, virtual machine environments, etc.)
> [Priority 1]
> For example, ensure that assistive technologies
> have access to information about the current input
> configuration so that they can trigger
> functionalities through keyboard events, mouse
> events, etc."


IJ: Writing to a control means being able to change
its state (e.g., checkbox, text input, button, etc.)
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #11: Fix first paragraph in guideline 11
> (Documentation).
> 
> Importance: Important
> 
> I think that the paragraph is incorrect. The
> requirement is for WCAG-compliant format. Mention
> of CD-ROM, diskette, fax, and telephone is
> unnecessary. It may also make someone think that
> these are requirements or that they are
> alternatives presented by W3C. If you want to
> encourage developers to provide documentation in a
> variety of ways, but it should not be stated in a
> way that makes in seem like a requirement.
> 
> Old:
> 
> "Documentation includes anything that explains how
> to install, get help for, use, or configure the
> product. Users must have access to installation
> information, either in electronic form (CD-ROM,
> diskette, over the Web), by fax, or by telephone."
> 
> New:
> 
> "Documentation includes anything that explains how
> to install, get help for, use, or configure the
> product. At least one version of the documentation
> must conform to the Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]."

IJ: Ok.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #12: Fix first sentence of the definition
> of Active Element.
> 
> Importance: Important
> 
> Fix caps in title. Combine second paragraph into
> first unless it has a distinct unifying idea.
> Clarify first sentence.

IJ: Ok.
 
> Old:
> 
> "Active element"
> 
> "Active elements have associated behaviors that may
> be activated (or "triggered") either through user
> interaction or through scripts. Which elements are
> active depends on the document language and whether
> the features are supported by the user agent. In
> HTML documents, for example, active elements
> include links, image maps, form controls, element
> instances with a value for the "longdesc"
> attribute, and element instances with scripts
> (event handlers) explicitly associated with them
> (e.g., through the various "on" attributes). "
> "An active element's behavior may be triggered
> through any number of mechanisms, including the
> mouse, keyboard, an API, etc. The effect of
> activation depends on the element. For instance,
> when a link is activated, the user agent generally
> retrieves the linked resource. When a form control
> is activated, it may change state (e.g., check
> boxes) or may take user input (e.g., a text field).
> Activating an element with a script assigned for
> that particular activation mechanism (e.g., mouse
> down event, key press event, etc.) causes the
> script to be executed. "
> "Most systems use the content focus to navigate
> active elements and identify which is to be
> activated."
> 
> New:
> 
> "Active element"
> 
> "Active elements <CHANGE>are elements with
> behaviors </CHANGE>that may be activated (or
> "triggered") either through user interaction or
> through scripts. Which elements are active depends
> on the document language and whether the features
> are supported by the user agent. In HTML documents,
> for example, active elements include links, image
> maps, form controls, element instances with a value
> for the "longdesc" attribute, and element instances
> with scripts (event handlers) explicitly associated
> with them (e.g., through the various "on"
> attributes). <ADD INTO FIRST PARAGRAPH>An active
> element's behavior may be triggered through any
> number of mechanisms, including the mouse,
> keyboard, an API, etc. The effect of activation
> depends on the element. For instance, when a link
> is activated, the user agent generally retrieves
> the linked resource. When a form control is
> activated, it may change state (e.g., check boxes)
> or may take user input (e.g., a text field).
> Activating an element with a script assigned for
> that particular activation mechanism (e.g., mouse
> down event, key press event, etc.) causes the
> script to be executed. "
> "Most systems use the content focus to navigate
> active elements and identify which is to be
> activated."

IJ: Ok.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment 13: Fix definition of text equivalents (in
> Equivalent Alternatives for Content) in glossary.
> 
> Importance: Essential
> 
> This definition contains an error. It cites
> captions as a "non-text" equivalent, but captions
> are actually a text equivalent. Delete the word
> captions in the sentence listed below.

IJ: Ok.
 
> Old:
> 
> "Equivalent alternatives of content include text
> equivalents (long and short, synchronized and
> unsynchronized) and non-text equivalents (e.g.,
> captions, auditory descriptions, a visual track
> that shows sign language translation of a written
> text, etc.).
> 
> New:
> 
> "Equivalent alternatives of content include text
> equivalents (long and short, synchronized and
> unsynchronized) and non-text equivalents (e.g.,
> <WORD DELETED>auditory descriptions, a visual track
> that shows sign language translation of a written
> text, etc.).

 
> ====
> 
> Comment #14: Fix the definition of "Recognize".
> 
> Importance: Moderate
> 
> Old:
> 
> "Recognize"
> "A user agent is said to recognize markup, content
> types, or rendering effects when it can identify
> (through built-in mechanisms, Document Type
> Definitions (DTDs) style sheets, headers, etc) the
> information. For instance, HTML 3.2 user agents may
> not recognize the new elements or attributes of
> HTML 4.0. Similarly, a user agent may recognize
> blinking content specified by elements or
> attributes, but may not recognize that an applet is
> blinking. The Techniques Document [UA-TECHNIQUES]
> lists some markup known to affect accessibility."
> 
> New:
> 
> "Recognize"
> "A user agent is said to "recognize" markup,
> content types, or rendering effects when it can
> identify the information. Recognition may occur
> through built-in mechanisms, Document Type
> Definitions (DTDs) style sheets, headers, other
> means. An example of failure of recognition is that
> HTML 3.2 user agents may not recognize the new
> elements or attributes of HTML 4.0. While a user
> agent may recognize blinking content specified by
> elements or attributes, it may not recognize
> blinking in an applet. The Techniques Document [UA-
> TECHNIQUES] lists some markup known to affect
> accessibility."

IJ: I think the penultimate sentence needs work, but ok.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #15: Fix the definition of "Recognize".
> 
> Importance: Moderate
> 
> Clarify the fact that each user agent is analyzed
> indpendently. The reference to "(including
> communication with assistive technologies)" is
> unnecessary and confusing.
> 
> Current phrasing incorrectly implies that giving
> "full access" is part of the definition of user
> agent. Do not say "full access" because a user
> agent is _still_ a user agent even if it does _not_
> provide full access.
> 
> Old:
> 
> "Abstract"
> "The guidelines in this document explain to
> developers how to design user agents that are
> accessible to people with disabilities. User agents
> include graphical desktop browsers, multimedia
> players, text browsers, voice browsers, plug-ins,
> and other assistive technologies that give full
> access to Web content. While these guidelines
> primarily address the accessibility of general-
> purpose graphical user agents (including
> communication with assistive technologies), the
> principles presented apply to other types of user
> agents as well. Following these principles will
> make the Web accessible to users with disabilities
> and will benefit all users."
> 
> New:
> 
> "Abstract"
> "The guidelines in this document explain to
> developers how to design user agents that are
> accessible to people with disabilities. User agents
> include graphical desktop browsers, multimedia
> players, text browsers, voice browsers, plug-ins,
> and other assistive technologies that <CHANGE>
> provide access </CHANGE>to Web content. While these
> guidelines primarily address the accessibility of
> general-purpose graphical user agents <MATERIAL
> DELETED>, the principles presented apply to other
> types of user agents as well. Following these
> principles will make the Web accessible to users
> with disabilities and will benefit all users."

IJ: Seems ok to me. Communication with ATs is introduced
    in section 1.2.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #16: Make explicit the groupings of
> checkpoints.
> 
> Importance: Important
> 
> The documents does not explain the significance of
> the groups of checkpoints within a guideline. The
> meaning and significance should be explained in
> section 1.3 (How the Guidelines are Organized).
> 
> Old:
> 
> "The eleven guidelines in this document state
> general principles for the development of
> accessible user agents. Each guideline includes: "
> ? " The guideline number."
> ? "The statement of the guideline."
> ? "The rationale behind the guideline and
> identification of some groups of users who
> benefit from it."
> ? "A list of checkpoint definitions."
> 
> New:
> 
> "The eleven guidelines in this document state
> general principles for the development of
> accessible user agents. Each guideline includes: "
> ? " The guideline number."
> ? "The statement of the guideline."
> ? "The rationale behind the guideline and
> identification of some groups of users who
> benefit from it."
> ? "A list of checkpoint definitions divided into
> one or more checkpoint topics [or categories?]"
> 
> "The checkpoint topics, such as "Checkpoints for
> content accessibility", "Checkpoints for user
> interface accessibility", etc., allowing grouping
> of related checkpoints. Within each topic the
> checkpoints are ordered according to their
> priority, e.g., [Priority 1] before [Priority 2]."

IJ: Ok.
 
> ====
> 
> Comment #17: Glossary headings and first sentences
> have some inconsistencies.
> 
> Importance: Moderate
> 
> Make glossary headings and first sentences
> consistent. I suggest initial caps on all words in
> glossary entry name. 

IJ: Ok.

> And have the first sentence be
> a complete sentence rather than just a fragment.

IJ: Yes, I've been meaning to do this. We spent some time
    with ATAG doing this as well.

Thanks Eric!

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814 or 212 532-4767
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2000 23:00:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:52 GMT