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

Responses to Martin Duerst (I18N) issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:21:08 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB29FE4.50E74BCE@w3.org>
To: duerst@w3.org
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your last
call issues (327-337, refer to the email summarizing the issues [0]).

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

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243
[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/

The UAWG disagreed with you on the following:

#331: Add a requirement for configurability based on natural language
  Comment: The Working Group did not add a requirement to the
  document for general configurability based on natural language
  preferences. Instead, for the requirements related to speech
  rate and visual text rendering, the techniques document suggest
  per-language configurability.

The UAWG agreed with you, but please confirm:

#329: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification required about boundaries of
"recognized but unsupported"

  Comment: What is now checkpoint 2.10 states:

    "2.10 Allow configuration not to render content in unsupported
    natural languages. Indicate to the user in context that
    author-supplied content has not been rendered."

#332: Repair requirement for when author has not specified natural
language of content?

  Comment: The Working Group agreed. Checkpoint 4.15 includes
  a requirement to support user-defined extensions to the 
  speech dictionary.

#337: Conformance: Implementing the standard API for the keyboard
"after IME"

  Comment: Checkpoint 6.7 now reads (notice plural APIs):

   6.7 Implement the operating environment's standard APIs for the
   keyboard. [Priority 1] 
      Note: An operating environment may define more than one standard
      API for the keyboard. For instance, for Japanese and Chinese,
      input may be processed in two stages, with an API for each.

The UAWG adopted your suggestion:

#327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API?

  Comment: This is checkpoint 6.8 of the 9 March 2001 draft.

#328: Checkpoint 4.12: "Words" per minute bounds do not scale

  Comment: This is checkpoint 4.11 in the 9 March 2001 draft.
  The words per minute requirements have been removed. The 
  techniques document states:

    "For example, many speech synthesizers offer a range for English
    speech of 120 - 500 words per minute or more. The user should be
    able to increase or decrease the playback rate in convenient
    increments (e.g., in large steps, then in small steps for finer

#330: Definition: Natural language / Writing system / Script 

   Comment: The proposed clarifications and addition of the
   I18N usage of the term "Script" were incorporated into
   the document.

#336: Checkpoint 9.2: Delete "accessibility" from "OS accessibility

   Comment: Adopted. Checkpoint 7.2 now reads:

     "7.2 Ensure that default input configurations do not interfere
     with operating environment accessibility conventions."

The UAWG answered the following questions:

#333: Checkpoint 4.2: Clarification required about what "all text" means 

  Comment: The Note after checkpoint 4.2 now reads:

     "Note: For example, allow the user to specify that all text is to
     be rendered in a particular sans-serif font family. For text that
     cannot be rendered properly using the user's selected font
     family, the user agent may select an alternative font family."

#334: Checkpoint 7.5: Input to search capability not always "plain
text" (may be speech, braille)

  Comment: The Working Group clarified that the search requirement
  is only on text characters. The input method is not addressed by
  this checkpoint.

#335: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to consider international input methods in
single-key requirement

  Comment: The single-key requirement is not about characters but
  about physical keys. I have recently proposed a further
  clarification to what is now checkpoint 11.3 to state this
  more clearly:

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 18:21:12 UTC

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