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

Responses to WCAG WG issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:56:27 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB2C44B.A4A7F026@w3.org>
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, wendy@w3.org, jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Greg, Jason, Wendy,

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed the
non-editorial last call issues (449-457) raised by the WCAG WG; 
please refer to the email source of 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 before 27 March 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. If you do
not think you respond before 27 March, please let me know.  The
Director will appreciate a response whether you agree with the
disposition of comments or not. More information about the
process we are following is available in section 5.5.2 of the W3C
Process Document [3].

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

 - Ian

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365
[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:
===============================================

--------------------
#451: Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just null
alt

  Comment: This is now checkpoint 2.8. On the one hand, the Working
Group
  did not generalize the requirement for all decorative content
  because this checkpoint was designed to mirror WCAG 1.0
  requirements. However, the language of the checkpoint has been
  generalized to refer to missing "conditional content", not just
  equivalents. Please refer to the new definition of conditional
  content.

--------------------
#452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?)  

  Comment: This is now checkpoint 2.4. The Working Group left the
  "infinite pause" as the minimal requirement because this is the only
  interval that guarantees that the user will have time to interact
  with content. (We had discussed "multipliers" in the past.)  We have
  added techniques for additional configuration (as you suggested).

  Please note that this checkpoint does not apply in some cases.
  The Note includes this sentence:
 
     "This checkpoint does not apply when the user agent cannot
     recognize the time interval in the presentation format, or when
     the user agent cannot control the timing (e.g., because it is
     controlled by the server)."

------------------
#455: Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of presentation"?  

  Comment: (Editorial) Because the term "presentation" is used in this
  document to refer to a particular type of content (such as a
  multimedia presentation or an audio-only presentation), we chose
  instead to change the Guideline title to "Ensure user control of
  rendering."

===============================================
The UAWG adopted your proposal:
===============================================

--------------------
#449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0

  Comment: The WG has agreed to do this, but the summary
  has not yet been written.

--------------------
#453: Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects"  

  Comment: Checkpoint 3.4 now reads:

    "3.4 Allow configuration not to execute any executable content
    (e.g., scripts and applets). In this configuration, provide an
    option to alert the user when executable content is available (but
    has not been executed)."

    Please note that this is a "global configuration" checkpoint (it
    does not apply to individual script objects but to all of them
    at once).

===============================================
The UAWG answered your question:
===============================================

-----------------------
#450: If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions should it
follow?

  Comment: References to "operating system" have been generalized
  globally to "operating environment" (with a definition of operating
  environment added to the glossary). So if a system is implemented in
  Java, it would follow Java conventions (and possibly other ones).

-----------------------
#454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1?  

  Comment: These are now checkpoints 3.5 and 3.6. We raised the
  priority of checkpoint 3.5 to P1 because the author's design was
  that the user have access to changing content automatically. We left
  the priority of 3.6 a P2 since this is about a redirect, so a
  priori, the author's design was for the user *not* to have access to
  the content of the redirected page.

-----------------------
#457: Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required: standard
APIs only?

  Comment: We clarified checkpoint 6.4, which now reads:

  "6.4 Provide programmatic read and write access to user agent user
  interface controls. [Priority 1]

     Note: Per checkpoint 6.6, provide programmatic access through
     standard APIs (e.g., platform-independent APIs such as the W3C
     DOM; standard APIs defined for a specific operating system; and
     conventions for programming languages, plug-ins, virtual machine
     environments, etc.). This checkpoint requires user agents to
     provide programmatic access even in the absence of a standard API
     for doing so."

-----------------------
#456: Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not mean
system APIs

  Comment: We have clarified section 3.4 of the document ("Use of
  operating environment features of conformance"). It now reads:

    "To satisfy the requirements of this document, developers are
    encouraged to adopt operating environment conventions and features
    that benefit accessibility. When an operating environment feature
    (e.g., the operating system's audio control feature) is adopted to
    satisfy the requirements of this document, it is part of the
    subject of the claim.

    "Developers may provide access through the user agent's user
    interface to operating environment features adopted to satisfy the
    requirements of this document. For example, if the user agent
    adopts the operating system's audio control feature to satisfy
    checkpoint 4.9, the user agent may (but is not required to)
    include those controls in its own user interface."

-- 
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 20:56:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT