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

Re: Responses to RealNetworks issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:53:48 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010719155055.036f1d10@goobox.prognet.com>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi Ian,

Thanks for the detailed responses.  Unfortunately, we've run out of 
bandwidth to respond to the responses.  I'm glad we were able to influence 
some decisions, and I think we may just need to agree to disagree for now 
on the others.

Rob

At 12:45 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Rob,
>
>The User Agent Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) has almost
>finished resolving the issues raised during the third last call
>review of the 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0 [1].
>
>This is the UAWG's formal response to the issues you raised on behalf
>of RealNetworks, which have been logged in the Working Group's issues
>list [4].  Some of these issues were raised in a discussion with Ian
>Jacobs, others were part of a formal review.  The UAWG's resolutions
>and other editorial suggestions have been incorporated into the 22
>June 2001 draft of the UAAG 1.0 [5].
>
>Please indicate before 19 July whether you are satisfied with the
>UAWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
>misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
>If you do not think you can respond before 19 July, please let me
>know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
>with the resolutions or not.
>
>Below you will find:
>
>  1) More information follows about the process we are following.
>  2) A summary of the UAWG's responses to each of your issues.
>
>Note: Where checkpoint numbers have changed, I indicate the mapping to
>the 22 June 2001 draft.
>
>Thank you,
>
>  _ Ian
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>1) Process requirement to address last call issues
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 8 February 2001 Process Document, in
>order for the UAAG 1.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
>Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
>issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
>modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
>Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal
>response:
>
>   "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
>   addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
>   of having sent a response to the party who raised the
>   issue. This response should include the Working Group's
>   resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
>   reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
>   initial objection."
>
>If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
>the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
>issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
>Working Group may prepare its substantive response.
>
>If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
>does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
>objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
>with the relevant deliverables. There are currently two
>objections that the UAWG will carry forward with the document in
>a request to advance to Candidate Recommendation. Each concerns
>the priority of checkpoint 12.1, one that the priority should be
>lowered, the other that the priority should be raised. There are
>additional supporters of each position.
>
>   Phill Jenkins:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0528
>
>   Gregory Rosmaita:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0553
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409
>[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#RecsCR
>[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/groups.html#WGVotes
>[4] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3
>[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010622/
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>2) Issues you raised and responses
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Raised during discussions between RealNetworks and Ian
>------------------------------------------------------
>Summary of issues:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 495: 2.4, 3.5, 4.4: Don't require buffering of lost packets
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#495
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution: The UAWG agrees with the reviewer: user agents are not
>required to buffer "lost packets" due to a user-initiated pause.  We
>will clarify in the document that for some live presentations, there
>may be information loss when pause happens for 2.4, 3.5, and 4.4.
>
>Note, however, that for checkpoint 3.3 (toggle blinking/animated
>text), that the user agent must not drop packets.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 496: 2.4: How useful in heavily interactive presentations?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#496
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Real Networks: "In many situations, dynamic content may be accompanied
>by banner advertisements, for instance. Imagine a presentation where
>the top of the presentation is occupied by a series of eighty banner
>ads, one after the other, each lasting 30 seconds. It would seem that
>pausing the presentation every thirty seconds to allow for user input
>(for ads or some other content) would not make for a very positive
>user experience. In short, dynamic content with frequent and numerous
>opportunities for interaction would not be very usable if paused so
>frequently. Consider also a stock ticker, where each symbol is a link
>to that company's home page (or data about that company). How would
>2.4 work in this case?"
>
>Resolution: No change to the document. The UAWG agrees for that some
>presentations, this functionality may not be useful. However, it is
>expected to be useful for many types of presentations. In the case of
>a stock ticker, for example, the author should provide alternative
>static access to all of the stock symbols.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 497:  2.4: What is scope; what must the user agent pause?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#497
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Issue summary: Does the requirement to pause presentations apply to
>all content, even if not synchronized?
>
>Resolution: No change to the document.  Checkpoint 2.6 covers the case
>of synchronized content: if one piece of content is paused, the rest
>must be as well (to respect synchronization). For non-synchronized
>content, the user agent might pause everything or might not pause
>unrelated content. The UAWG presumes that both streams will be
>available at another time, and if not, the user must be able to choose
>which is preferred.
>
>The following recommendation appears in the note after 2.4:
>
>   "Per checkpoint 2.6, when the user pauses one piece of a
>   synchronized presentation, the user agent should pause all of the
>   pieces (whether they are rendered in the same or different
>   viewports)."
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 498: 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, 8.2: Conformance for some but not all formats
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#498
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Issue summary: It was not clear in the last call draft whether a UA
>had to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 1.0 for every format
>implemented, or whether some formats could be used to satisfy the
>requirements and others be outside of a conformance claim for the same
>user agent.
>
>
>Resolved:
>
>   - The user agent is not required to conform for *all* formats.
>
>   - A claim should include information about which formats are
>     implemented for the purposes of conformance.
>
>   - The claim should include information about which APIs are
>     implemented for the purposes of conformance.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 499: 3.3: Relationship between streaming text and animated text
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#499
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolved:
>
>  - Animation and streaming are independent. Streaming is a content
>  delivery technique while animation is a content presentation
>  technique.
>
>  - UAAG 1.0 requires that animated content be available in
>    non-animated form. This would include streaming content.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 500:  4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints,
>how does override work? Can captions be positioned in a
>separate viewport?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#500
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolved: This checkpoint may be satisfied by putting captions in a
>separate viewport with some constraints. Checkpoint 4.6 has been
>modified in the 22 June draft to read:
>
>  <BLOCKQUOTE>
>   1.For graphical viewports, allow the user to position captions with
>   respect to synchronized visual tracks as follows: if the user agent
>   satisfies this checkpoint by using a markup language or style sheet
>   language to provide configuration or control, then the user agent
>   must allow the user to choose from among at least the range of
>   positions enabled by the format otherwise the user agent must allow
>   both non-overlapping and overlapping positions (e.g., by rendering
>   captions in a separate viewport that may be positioned on top of the
>   visual track).
>
>   2.In either case, the user agent must allow the user to override the
>   author's specified position.
>
>   3.The user agent is not required to change the layout of other
>   content (i.e., reflow) after the user has changed the position of
>   captions.
>
>   4.The user agent is not required to make the captions background
>   transparent when those captions are rendered above a related video
>   track.
>   </BLOCKQUOTE>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 501: 10.9: What is scope of position indicator?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#501
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>RealNetworks comment: Imagine a presentation with 80 audio clips in a
>row (this could be done in SMIL with a element). Should the position
>indicator account for all 80? Or each one, one at a time? I wouldn't
>want the user agent to have to go out to the Web to get duration
>information about all 80 clips in advance in order to build a
>proportional position indicator. Instead, I think it would be
>reasonable to display in that case something like "First of 80 clips,
>20% of first clip".
>
>Resolution:
>  - UAAG 1.0 will not require any particular granularity for
>    position indication.
>
>  - The technique suggested by RealNetworks has been added
>    to the document.
>
>---------------------------
>Raised during formal review
>---------------------------
>RealNetworks review comments:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 506: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different
>components control different content?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#506
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Issue summary: How does a global configuration requirement work when
>different modules render and provide control over different types of
>content?
>
>Resolution:
>
>  - The definition of "global configuration" now reads:
>
>    "A global configuration is one that applies across elements of the
>    same Web resource, as well as across Web resources. A global
>    configuration may be implemented by more than one setting (e.g.,
>    per component of the user agent). For instance, when a user agent
>    consists of a browser that renders HTML and a plug-in that renders
>    SVG, to satisfy the global configuration requirements of this
>    document, the browser may provide one setting and the plug-in
>    another."
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 507: 4.3: If the format does not provide a way to
>specify a global background color, does the checkpoint
>apply if user agent can specify background color
>on a region-by-region basis?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#507
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution: Checkpoint 4.3 applies to all regions (same for 4.2,
>4.2). The format may not allow background to be set at a global level,
>but it doesn't matter to the user: the background color has to be
>"color X" everywhere. Thus, the user agent may have to satisfy this
>requirement by setting the background color on all regions.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 508:  4.5: Require clarification - is fast playback required,
>or just the ability to jump forward in time?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#508
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution:
>
>  - Fast playback is not required. The requirement is for the
>    ability to jump forward in time (either serially or discretely).
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 509: 6.1, 6.2: P1 to provide access to content (e.g., in
>raw form), DOM either P2 or alternative
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#509
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution: The UAWG does not agree with the reviewer, and maintains
>the DOM requirements as P1 requirements. To address this issue, the WG
>invited assistive technology developers to a special teleconference
>dedicated in part to this question. A summary of this teleconference
>is available:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0243
>
>At this teleconference, there was clear consensus that AT developers
>found the DOM requirement important and useful, and await
>implementations.
>
>The UAWG points out that raw access to content is insufficient as a
>technique because it does not allow an assistive technology to track
>changes in the browsing session incrementally; any change to content
>requires the AT to reparse content and this makes tracking point of
>regard very difficult.
>
>The UAWG also points out that while cost and implementation burden are
>considerations, they are secondary to user needs in establishing
>requirements for this document. The UAWG will further address cost and
>implementation issues in Candidate Recommendation.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 510: Conformance: How to observe OS conventions when
>building a cross-platform user agent?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#510
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution:
>
>  - The UAWG maintains that in general, it is a P2 requirement
>    to observe operating environment conventions because:
>
>    a) Conventions themselves are an accessibility issue (e.g.,
>       inconsistency in the user interface may cause problems
>       for users with cognitive disabilities).
>
>    b) Conventions are also important to interoperability with
>       assistive technologies.
>
>  - For some specific important cases, UAAG 1.0 includes
>    P1 requirements for following operating environment
>    conventions:
>
>     * 6.6: The UAWG considers that the conventional APIs for
>            the keyboard must be implemented due to interoperability
>            requirements.
>     * 7.1, 7.2: These are P1 because they are important for
>            interoperability and keyboard input consistency.
>
>
>  - The UAWG concludes that, while cross-platform design is certainly
>    beneficial to developers, those advantages do not override the
>    needs of users, who use a single platform at a time, and who need
>    consistency and interoperability on that platform.
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 18:53:13 GMT

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