W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: I18N review comments on UAAG 1.0 RESEND

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:28:40 -0700
Message-ID: <3D92A918.2060006@w3.org>
To: ishida@w3.org
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Richard Ishida wrote:
 > I am resending this note with corrections made to the numbering 
at the end.
  > The content is unchanged.
 > RI
 > ============================================
 > Please find enclosed the last call comments from the 
Internationalization WG
  > on the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Version reviewed
 > was 21 August 2002

Richard,

Thanks to you and the I18N WG for reviewing the document and sending
comments. Some replies below.

   - Ian


 > #i18n-1:
 > Checkpoint 2.10, checkpoint provision 1
 > The heading talks about 'language' whereas the checkpoint
 > provision talks about
 >scripts (ie. Writing systems)'.  Both the title and text should be
 > changed to'language or script', to cover both the visual 
rendering > case and the text-to-speech (or -to-braille) case.


That seems ok to me.

I note that the checkpoint used to include requirements that applied
to pre-recorded audio, but we removed them. Our primary use case for
this checkpoint is to turn off the visual rendering of meaningless
characters.

 > #i18n-2:
 > Checkpoint 2.10, checkpoint provision 1
 > Is it clear enough how one would know that text is in an 
'unsupported script' or language?  Whether or not something can be 
rendered would presumably depend
 >on the capabilities of the application in a given modality, eg.
 > font availability in a visual modality (without necessarily a
 > requirement to understand the underlying semantics if this is a
 >visual illustration); recognisability
  >of text (words) in a text-to-speech modality (without necessarily 
 > a requirement to be able to display the text).

Do you consider the information in the Techniques Document
sufficient? What text would you add there?

 > Detection of an unsupported script or language would presumably be
  >significantly aided by recognition of markup indicating a
 > language, or recognition of a range of Unicode code points (eg.
 > the set of Latin characters used in Welsh or African languages)
 > that are known not to be supported. Perhaps, therefore, it would
 > be worthwhile to add another requirement along the lines of: 
 >"Ensure recognition of any cues provided
  >in markup relating to a change of language or script." Examples
 > would include xml:lang in XHTML, :lang in CSS, lang in HTML, etc.

I think that falls under checkpoint 2.1: "Render content according
to specification."

 > Note that there is no markup at the moment in xml or html that
  > indicates a change of script, and there may never be.  The text
  >'or script' was included above to cover any possibility of such a
  >thing occurring in a future implementation, given the assumption
  >that the guidelines are also aimed at people developing new
technologies.

Ok.

 > #i18n-3:
 > Checkpoint 2.10, checkpoint provision 2
 > It may be helpful for the user to append "because it is not in a
 > supported  language or script (i.e. writing system)" to the end of
 > this sentence (ie.  the UA should indicate the reason that the
 > text was lost) if one can assume  that the user agent knows that
 > it is because the text is in an unmanageable language or script.

Yes, I agree that would be clearer.

 > #i18n-4:
 > Checkpoint 4.1, Sufficient technique
 > Suggest: "render text at 36 points" -> "render Latin text at 36
 > points".  Reason: rendering Chinese or Arabic fonts at 36 points
 > may not produce the same degree of clarity as rendering Latin text
 >  at that size, and different settings may be more appropriate.

Ok.

 > #i18n-5:
 > Checkpoint 4.2
 > Since global imposition of a Latin-only font could break text in
 > other scripts, perhaps this should be finessed to say that it
 > should be possible for the user to specify different user
 > preferred fonts by script group (much like eg. the common browsers
 >  allow you to set default fonts for Unicode ranges).

I'm not sure that we need it as an additional UAAG requirement;
this seems primarily to be an internationalization requirement.
Rather than add this as a requirement, I suggest we make your
point in the Techniques document.


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 02:32:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:11 GMT