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

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:36:59 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010319183602.009eec10@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello Ian - I'm forwarding this to the I18N IG, since these are
all I18N issues.

I18N IG - Ian has indicated to me that he needs a response by
March 27th.

Regards,   Martin.

At 18:21 01/03/16 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Martin,
>
>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
>comments,
>
>  - 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
>preferences?
>
>   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
>internationally.
>
>   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
>     control)."
>
>--------------------
>#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
>conventions"?
>
>    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:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0400
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 07:03:41 GMT

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