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

Re: Issue 516: Checkpoint 2.4: Checkpoint doesn't make sense for SMIL 2.0

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:29:41 -0400
Message-Id: <200107110319.XAA2170951@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 01:53 PM 2001-07-09 , Jon Gunderson wrote:
>I believe we have already talked about this issue.  If the timing for the 
>input is not recognizable as a part of markup, then the user agent does not 
>have to provide the service.  It may indicate a potential accessibility 
>problem in the SMIL 2.0 specification, if this type of user input 
>interaction cannot be identified by the user agent through the author 
>supplied markup.
>
>QUESTION: Does anyone know if timed input behavior can be defined in SMIL 
>2.0 through markup alone, or would there need to be some scripting 
>involved?  The difference I see in the use of scripting, is that the author 
>is essentially creating their own user interface.
>

AG;:

As regards that last question, yes.

See, for example

<http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/extended-linking.html#SMILLinking-Area>http://
www.w3.org/TR/smil20/extended-linking.html#SMILLinking-Area

Here the sensitive region is a volume swept out by a display region X a time
range.  The time range of a smil:area is its own time container in the
hierarchy of time containers.  And this is all defined in the SMIL, there
is no
scripting involved.
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 23:19:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:58 GMT