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

[last call, S2] Miscellaneous usage

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:26:11 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001112210045.0422fae0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
This note contains a collection of mislocutions that detract from the
comprehensibility of the document. 

1) "Refer to" -- should only be used for normative references.  Use "see" or
"see also" in informative contexts such as notes.  See the last sentence of
the
note following checkpoint 2.1 for an example.  

2) [Checkpoint 2.7] Where it says "not to render content marked up in a
recognized but unsupported natural language"

The markup is not in the unsupported natural language.  The markup is in the
format formal language.  The knowledge of what the natural language is may
come
from markup or from other metadata; as correctly discussed in the glossary
under "natural language."  So markup is not the discriminant, here, it is
recognition of the mismatch between the language of the content and the
available capabilities of the UA.

What is intended here can be correctly said "not to render text recognized as
being in an unsupported natural language."

3) [Checkpoint 3.7]  Where it says

"Continue to alert the user, according to [the] schedule specified by the
author, that a manual request will refresh the content."

The use of 'that' suggest a persistent, ongoing condition, where an event, the
onset of a new condition, is intended.  Better to say

"Alert the user, according to the schedule specified by the author, whenever
fresh content is available (to be obtained by such manual request)."

"Continue to" has once again the aura of a continuous, ongoing activity;
whereas a recurring event notification is contemplated.

4) [a few paragraphs before checkpoint 4.1]

In the paragraph beginning "For people with visual disabilities..."

Where it says "... that the user does not initiate, allow the user to..."

Do not use imperative voice in an informative clause such as this paragraph.

5) [Checkpoint group header introducing checkpoints 4.5 through 4.9]

Simply say "Checkpoints for accessibility of continuous-time content."

The explanation in terms of a list of buzz words only understood by reference
to the glossary is [not the high point of comprehensibility in this document].

6) In the Note following checkpoint 10.2, where it says

          Note: For example, review the documentation or help system to
          ensure that it includes information about the accessibility
          requirements of WAI Guidelines.

It is not the "accessibility requirements of WAI guidelines" that the
documentation needs to cover but "functions and capabilities of the User Agent
which are called for in WAI accessibility guidelines."

7) In the introduction to chapter 3 (conformance) one is not defining
'subject,' the word, but rather the meaning that 'subject' takes on in the
context of "subject of a claim of conformance to this document."  Expressing
this as a meaning bound to one word out of context is awkward and
unnecessary. 
It is not the way to reach the greatest clarity on this point.

Make it clear that you are introducing the idea of the 'subject' _of a claim_
and it will be clear.

But you should start with the fact that the subject is a User Agent, pursuant
to what we have defined to be a User Agent.  Then, "the subject of a claim" is
a clearly defined User Agent about which someone wishes to claim some level of
conformance to this document.  That's all.

In the heuristic introduction to 3.1, for example, we should say "some User
Agents may not support..." and not get the reader all tangled up in code
words.

8) The document uses Internet Media Types to explain the concept of type
labels.  This can be confusing, because those who actually know about Internet
Media Types will know that they are not in actuality closely related to the
kind of user-oriented classification that is intended here.  The overlap
between the 'application' top level type and the others has resulted in
widespread usage where there is not a clean sorting along user-experience
lines.

9) Use of the code-word 'valid' to designate "labels from the list set out in
section 3.1" is unnecessarily obscure.

Al
--
Usage in headers.  Comments in response to the last call request for comments
have been classified S1, S2, or E based on the following rough scale:

S1: Substantive matter of the first (highest) criticality or importance to the
mission of the document.  The standard set is ineffective, the document is
self
contradictory, etc.

S2: Substantive matter of a somewhat lower criticality.  The document is hard
to comprehend, does not align well with related WAI documents, etc.

E: Editorial matters.  Not regarded as substantive.

Re: 

User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

W3C Working Draft 23 October 2000

   This version:
         
[9]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/W
D-UAAG10-20001023
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 00:55:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT