W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Responses to Greg Lowney issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:39:51 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB29637.E6DC6700@w3.org>
To: greglo@microsoft.com
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your last
call issues (389-442, refer to your email [0]). This is a long
email, but then again, so was yours <wink>.

The complete second last call issues list [1] is available
online. The results of the UAWG's resolutions have been
incorporated into the 9 March 2001 draft of the document [2].

  NOTE: The issue titles relate to the 23 October 2000 last call
  draft [4]. In my comments below, checkpoint numbers, etc. have
  been updated to correspond to the 9 March 2001 draft.

Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the UAWG's
resolutions, whether you wish the WG to carry forward
any objections to the Director as the document advances, or
whether you require further clarification or comment.
Refer to section 5.5.2 of the 8 February 2001 W3C Process
Document [3] for information about requirements to formally
address issues prior to advancing to last call. 

On behalf of the UAWG, thank you for your review and

 - Ian

P.S. The Working Group anticipates advancing to (its third)
last call in just a few weeks. We are currently reviewing and
editing the document after changes due to second last call issues.

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310
[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/

The UAWG disagreed with you on the following:

#389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective

  Comment: We've done a lot to improve the document in terms of
  conformance since the last call draft, including the following:
   a) Introduction of content type labels and input modality
      labels to allow greater flexibility in conformance.
   b) Clarifying checkpoints (notably those of Guideline 1).

   However, as you recall from our 25 January 2001 discussion [4]
   you maintained your concern that the Guidelines are not 
   technology-specific, making it difficult to objectively measure 
   conformance. We will take these comments to the Director, but
   for now we have left the Guidelines (and conformance scheme)
   technology-independent, as was the case for WCAG 1.0 and ATAG 1.0.


#396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values 

  Comment: The Working Group resolved not to include general
  resizing requirements in UAAG 1.0 (though there are
  requirements for resizing text). This is now clearly listed as
  one of the limitations of UAAG 1.0 (refer to section 1.3 of
  the document). Some specifications (e.g., SVG) will allow for
  resizing as part of conformance to those specifications.

#399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for [positioning
  of transcripts and captions?]

  Comment: The Quicktime player allows positioning (but not when
  captions are streamed; only when they are downloaded and
  played). The RealPlayer does not (yet) support caption positioning
  for SMIL, but the SMIL specification itself allows this. We are
  working on getting more implementation experience/commitments.
  In the meantime, the Working Group resolved to maintain this as
  a P1 requirement.

#406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3 

  Comment: The Working Group felt that the orientation problems
  were significant enough that this checkpoint (now 5.1) should
  remain a priority 2 checkpoint.

#414: Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements 

  Comment: There has been no increase in the minimal navigation
  requirements for what is now checkpoint 9.2:

    "9.2 Allow the user to move the content focus to any enabled
    element in the viewport. If the author has not specified a
    navigation order, allow at least forward sequential
    navigation to each element, in document order. The user agent
    may also include disabled elements in the navigation order."

  One reason that there has not been an increase is that there
  are other navigation requirements in the document (search,
  structured navigation). Thus, this checkpoint alone does not
  guarantee simple access (but it does meet the definition of a
  P1 checkpoint), but we anticipate that access will be possible
  by the sum of the navigation requirements.

  Please feel free to suggest alternative minimal requirements.

#418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text. 

  Comment: The Working Group felt that any rendered content
  should be part of the search, but undrendered content should
  not since this would be disorienting to the user. Instead, other
  requirements of the document require access to all content, and
  when rendered, that content is subject to the search

#429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying
#431: New requirement: conforming UA must make available
preferences through API 

  Comment: The Working Group did not add these requirements
  today for two reasons:
   - There is no known interoperable API for exchanging user
   preferences. The Working Group intends to pursue this (e.g.,
   with the DOM WG) after UAAG 1.0.

   - The benefit to accessibility has not been studied.

#430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images 

  Comment: There are several checkpoints related to animations
  in UAAG 1.0: 3.2, 3.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7, 4.8. The Working
  Group felt that the requirement of checkpoint 3.2 was about
  turning off rendering of a block of content that might be 
  be visually disorienting, but not because of the motion; just
  because of the quantity of information. Thus, checkpoint
  3.2 has been limited to "video and animated images", while
  checkpoints 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8 (which are about motion) have
  been broadened to include all classes of animations, as you
  suggested. Furthermore, a definition of "animation" has been
  added to the document to clarify what is expected.

#432: Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2 

  Comment: The Working Group disagrees that blinking images
  and animated images are the same: blinking is an on/off effect.
  There is no requirement to slow down this blinking effect (only
  to stop it). There are requirements to slow down animation effects,
  so that users can understand the changes to content.

#440: Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques? 

  Comment: The Working Group believes that the details of the
  required search functionality (now checkpoint 9.8) are
  minimal requirements, and thus belong in the checkpoint.

#441: New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the
resource being at the same or a different domain.

  Comment: This was not added. However, there is a requirement
  to provide information about whether the link is internal
  to the same resource.

The UAWG agreed with you, but please confirm:

#393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other
programmatic means.

 Comment: This requirement was folded into a new checkpoint:

    "6.6 Implement standard accessibility APIs (e.g., of the
    operating environment). Where these APIs do not enable the
    user agent to satisfy the requirements of this document, use
    the standard input and output APIs of the operating
    environment." [Priority 1]

 Thus, while the priority of implementing standard i/o APIs was
 not changed to Priority 1, the Working Group agreed that it was
 more important to first use available accessibility APIs (which
 are higher level than the i/o APIs) and to only use the i/o APIs
 in failure mode.

#397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to
      define "system colors"

 Comment: The express "system colors" has been replaced globally
 by "range of colors supported by the operating environment."

#403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of
      author-specified speeds.

 Comment: We did not add this requirement (for user control of
 author-supplied rate changes) for the following reasons:

   1) If speech engine allows user override, that's the speech
   engine's functionality, not the UA's.

   2) We don't require content transformations to strip out
   author-supplied rate changes before sending to the speech

#415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4) 

   Comment: There have been a number of changes related to the
   term "active element". In fact, the term has been deleted 
   from the document and replaced with other terms (with clearer
   entries in the glossary):

     * Interactive element
     * Enabled element.

   Furthermore, the definition of "enabled element" states:

     "For the requirements of this document, user selection does
     not constitute user interaction with enabled elements."

The UAWG believes the comment has been addressed due
to other changes in the document or because the comment required
clarification but no substantial change to the document:

#391: Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to
      reimplement input methods.

 Comment: This clarification is no longer required because of the
 more straightforward input device requirements: if you claim
 conformance for the pointing device, you must indeed allow for
 character input (for example) through the pointing device (this
 is part of "full operation through the pointing
 device). Furthermore, this checkpoint has been deleted in the 9
 March draft.

#392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad

 Comment: This is a conformance issue: a claim of conformance
 may include any number of software components. Therefore, a
 user agent alone might not satisfy one of the requirements, but
 the user agent in conjunction with another piece of software
 (e.g., an on-screen keyboard that comes with the OS) might.
 There is no longer a notion of "what is the responsibility of
 the user agent, the operating system, and third-party
 accessibility aids"; there are simply requirements that must
 be met, by whatever means the claimant has available.

#400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to
play simultaneously?

 Comment: The answer is that the requirement for independent
 volume control is not necessary when sources of audio may be
 played one after the other. In that case, global control
 suffices (another checkpoint). Thus, this is an expression of
 the minimal functional requirement. We added a Note to
 checkpoint 4.10:

   "Note: Sounds that play at different times are distinguishable
   and therefore independent control of their volumes is not part
   of this checkpoint (volume control per checkpoint 4.9
   suffices). The user agent may satisfy this checkpoint by
   allowing the user to control independently the volumes of all
   distinct audio sources. The user control required by this
   checkpoint includes the ability to override author-specified
   volumes for the relevant sources of audio."

#401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs [into
      separate checkpoints.]
#402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for
one wpm case)

 Comment: The minimal requirements have been removed from the
 checkpoint as a result of internationalization review. The
 checkpoint now reads:

    "4.11 Allow configuration and control of the synthesized
    speech playback rate, according to the full range offered by
    the speech synthesizer."

#416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard? 

 Comment: This is covered by the checkpoint 1.1. requirement to
 be able to operate the user agent fully with the keyboard.

#426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this

  Comment: This is now checkpoint 11.4. In both the 9 March 2001
  draft and the 23 October draft, this checkpoint does not make
  any requirements about the complexity of bindings because those
  requirements are addressed by other checkpoints. Thus, no
  change was required.

#427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format 

  Comment: The UAAG 1.0 requirement of checkpoint 12.1 is
  that at least one version of the documentation conform to 
  WCAG 1.0. While WCAG 1.0 is heavily oriented towards HTML, it
  does not require HTML only. The Working Group felt that WCAG 1.0
  was the best document available today for explaining how to
  create accessible content.

#428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect
accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4)

  Comment: The Working Group did not add another requirement, but

   * Linked what are now checkpoints 12.4 and 12.5 in the
   * Changed "promote accessibility" to "benefit accessibility"
     in checkpoint 12.4 (for consistency with other checkpoints).

The UAWG adopted your suggestion:

#390: Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing

 Comment: The UAAG 1.0 has been rewritten so that:
  a) Keyboard-only operation is always required;
  b) It is possible to conform for pointing device only and
     voice only operation. Any claim of conformance where that
     is not the case must include a statement to that effect
     (via input modality labels).

#395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional 

 Comment: The requirement now includes a configuration for 
 placeholders. Please refer to checkpoint 3.7 in the 9 March draft.

#398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not
recognized as style"

 Comment: There were two changes to the document:
   a) The following statement in checkpoint 4.4 et al. is

      "The user agent is not required to satisfy this checkpoint
      for audio and animations whose recognized role is to create
      a purely stylistic effect."
   b) The Note of checkpoint 4.4 states:

      "Note: Purely stylistic effects include background sounds,
      decorative animated images, and effects caused by style
      sheets. The style exception of this checkpoint is based on
      the assumption that authors have satisfied the requirements
      of the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]
      not to convey information through style alone (e.g.,
      through color alone or style sheets alone)."

#404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big
      performance hit, reflow.
#405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish
#419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement 

  Comment: The font requirement has been removed. Refer to 
  the following checkpoints, which have all been harmonized 
  with respect to highlight requirements: 10.2, 10.3, 10.6, and

#407: Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic
closing of viewports

  Comment: This is now checkpoint 5.6 (Priority 3).

#408: Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not
force manual open.

  Comment: This was considered editorial, and checkpoint 5.3 
  reflects the Working Group's agreement.

#410: Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20? 

  Comment: The Working Group agreed and deleted the redundant

#411: Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface
with overlapping viewports

  Comment: The document's definition of "graphical" includes
  text-only, so your comment was agreed to. Furthermore, we 
  edited the checkpoint to be more specific about overlaps:

    "5.2 For graphical user interfaces, allow configuration so
    that the viewport with the current focus remains "on top" of
    all other viewports with which it overlaps."

#412: Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and
second sentences.

  Comment: Per your suggestion, the Working Group added "that 
  benefit accessibility" to what is now checkpoint 7.3.

#417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from
beginning without alert

  Comment: What is now checkpoint 9.8 includes this requirement:
  "If the search wraps back to the beginning of content, alert the
  user prior to wrapping"

#420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for
confirmation when activating a fee link

  Comment: (After some hesitation) this was added as checkpoint 5.6:

   "5.5 Allow configuration so the user is prompted to confirm
   any payment resulting from activation of a fee link."

#425: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4 

  Comment: To clarify as you suggested, the checkpoints were 
  combined into what is now 

#433: Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is

  Comment: The Working Group does not require control when
  T=0 in a redirect.

#434: Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to
override author-specified volumes

  Comment: The Note of checkpoint 4.12 states:

     "Note: The user control required by this checkpoint includes
     the ability to override author-specified speech volume."

#437: Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2 

  Comment: The Working Group agreed to raise the priority to  
  P2 of what is now checkpoint 6.9.

#439: Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation 

  Comment: We added directional navigation to the techniques
  document for what is now checkpoint 9.2.

The UAWG answered the following questions:

#394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through
a source view

  Comment: The Working Group put substantial effort into
  clarifying the requirements of Guideline 2. As a result of this
  effort, the requirement for a source view (for text formats) 
  was "promoted" to a checkpoint-level requirement. The document 
  now requires:
      * Rendering according to specification (checkpoint 2.1)
      * Rendering conditional context in context (checkpoint 2.3)
      * A text view for text formats [to ensure access when
        all else fails]. (checkpoint 2.2)

  For background information about the changes to Guideline 2,
  please refer to this summary:

#409: Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result? 

  Comment: The following Note has been added to checkpoint 5.3:

    "If a viewport (e.g., a frame set) contains other viewports,
    these requirements only apply to the outermost container

#413: Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content? 

  Comment: Yes, this applies only to content. There has been
  no change to the document because it was considered that
  the label in the document "Checkpoints for content" was
  sufficient, but given other changes to the document
  subsequently, I think this requires an additional (editorial)
  clarification to the checkpoint. (I will write a proposal
  to the Working Group.)

#421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required. 

  Comment: We clarified the intent by deleting the first sentence
  of the old checkpoint 8.6.  The new checkpoint (about system
  conventions) is checkpoint 7.1.

#422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active
element/focus + techniques

  Comment: The new checkpoint 10.3 and techniques have 
  been clarified as you suggested. 

#423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf
information presented.

  Comment: Checkpoints 11.1 and 11.2 now state more clearly
  the different requirements:

   "11.1 Provide information to the user about current user
   preferences for input configurations. [Priority 1] 
      Note: To satisfy this checkpoint, the user agent may make
      available binding information in a centralized fashion
      (e.g., a list of bindings) or a distributed fashion (e.g.,
      by listing keyboard shortcuts in user interface menus).
   "11.2 Provide a centralized view of the current
   author-specified input configuration bindings. [Priority 2]"

#424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include
active elements that take mouse input?

  Comment: Bindings accomplished through scripting are not part
  of the requirements of this document. This is covered by our
  "applicability" provision in general. Furthermore, the
  following statement has been added to section 3.2 of the
  document (as an example of when one would consider applicability): 

    "Some input device behavior may be controlled by scripts in a
    manner that the user agent cannot recognize."

#435: Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well? 

   Comment: Content only. There has been no change to the
   document. However, based on my comments for issue #413, I
   think additional clarification may be required.
#436: Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples 

   Comment: This was considered editorial. Examples were added to
   the Techniques document for what is now checkpoint 6.3.

#438: Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of
active elements sufficient?

   Comment: This has been clarified because the checkpoints of
   what is now Guideline 9 have been made much more specific
   to the content focus (whatever input devices are used
   to control the content focus). There are no requirements in
   the document for direct navigation through a pointing device,
   but if the user agent allows the user to move the focus with
   the pointing device, the desired functionality is achieved.

#442: Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click
   Comment: Yes it does, but only if you are claiming conformance
   for the pointing device.

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 17:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC