W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2010

FW: Howdy Over-worked UAAG gang!

From: Kelly Ford <Kelly.Ford@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:51:27 +0000
To: 'User Agent Working Group' <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FDD93DBB2C16D643AABC1A7111D149F314217F32@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
No immediate action required but I wanted to share the results of the review of the media requirements from UAAG that we did.  This was discussed briefly in last Thursday's meeting.

One thing we will want to look at is the items where our review indicated UAAG might want to consider doing more.  I'll be sending further mail on this soon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Ford 
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:47 AM
To: John Foliot; Jim Allan; jeanne@w3.org; Markku Hakkinen
Cc: 'Janina Sajka'; 'Judy Brewer'
Subject: RE: Howdy Over-worked UAAG gang!

John,

Mark, Jeanne and myself reviewed the wiki page this morning.  Below are our notes.  Please let us know if yu want any clarifications.

A couple themes came out of our review.

1. Many of the requirements here deal with multiple tracks, synchronization of those tracks, giving the user control over what is played and such.  We feel that UAAG 3.1.3 addresses many requirements in this area.
2. Review here identified a few items we will bring back to UAAG for consideration of adding or clarifying our success criteria  and or examples and implementation details.


Notes from Over-worked UAAG gang of Kelly, Mark and Jeanne:

DV-1 - UAAG 3.1.1 (A) UAWG will consider adding an example of audio description.
DV-2 - UAAG 3.1.3 (A)
DV-3 - UAAG 3.1.3 (A) and 3.1.4 (AA)
DV-4 - N/A UAAG is agnostic on type of recording. We are not in conflict.
DV-5 - N/A - author control is not part of UAAG
DV-6 - UAAG 3.7.2 (A)
DV-7 - should be a + (nice to have for usability but not an accessibility "must have")
DV-8 - N/A (author)
DV-9 - N/A (author)
DV-10 - UAAG 3.1.3 (A) UAAG will consider adding a specific reference to language
DV-11 - should be a + (May)  UAAG will consider making an AAA requirement for this.
DV-12 - N/A
DV-13 - should be a + UAAG will consider making an AAA requirement for this
DV-14 - N/A (covered under other guidelines) If you expose this info, you do so appropriately for accesssibility, e.g. make a dialog about the copyright being accessible.

TVD-1 - UAAG 3.1.3 although UAAG makes no mention of modality
TVD-1 cont - UAAG 3.1.3 (A) and 4.9.5 (A)
TVD-2 - N/A
TVD-2 cont N/A
TVD-2 N/A
TVD-3 should be a + (May)  UAAG will consider making an AAA requirement for this.
TVD-4 UAAG 4.9.6 (UAAG has a numbering problem, but both of them apply)
TVD-5 UAAG 3.8.1-4 on speech syntheses

EVD-1 UAAG 4.9.6 (first one)
EVD-2 should be a + (Should)  UAAG will consider making an AA requirement for this.
EVD-3 should be a + (Should)  UAAG will consider making an AA requirement for this.

CA-1 UAAG 3.1.3 (A) If it is authored to provide it, UAAG will support it.
CA-2 UAAG 3.7.2 (A)
CA-3 UAAG 3.7.2 (A)
CA-4 should be a + UAAG 3.8.2 and 3.8.3 for synthesized speech. UAAG will consider adding to our media player controls

CN-1 UAAG 4.9.6(2) and 4.9.7
CN-2 UAAG 4.9.6(2) and 4.9.7
CN-3 should be a +
CN-4 UAAG 4.9.6(2) and 4.9.7. If it is there, we will support it
CN-5 UAAG 4.9.5 (A)
CN-6 should be a + (May) UAWG will look into adding more in this area
CN-7 should be a +. As a general concept UAAG supports this.
CN-8 should be a + Who determines what is the ancillary content?
CN-9 should be a +
CN-10 should be a + UAAG 3.1.3 could include bilingual support. UUAG
4.9.10 covers scale and position of alternate content

CC-1 UAAG 3.1.3
CC-2 should be a +.  UAWG will consider this
CC-3 should be a +. UAWG will consider this
CC-4 should be a +. UAWG will consider making this more explicit
CC-5 UAAG 4.9.10
CC-6 UAAG 3.1.3 and 4.9.10.  Is this providing scroll of previous cues or of two different alternatives?
CC-7 should be a +
CC-8 seems more like an author thing.  COuld be N/A or +
CC-9 UAAG 4.9.11 (contrast and brightness) 3.6.1-3 for text appearance.
CC-10 3.6.1-3 for text appearance.
CC-11 3.6.1-3 for text appearance.
CC-12 should be a +  UAWG will re-examine their guidelines for caption text and consider substantially expanding it
CC-13 should be a +
CC-14 should be a +
CC-15 should be a +
CC-16 should be a +
CC-17 should be a +
CC-18 should be a +
CC-19 should be a +
CC-20 should be a +
CC-21 should be a +
CC-21 should be a +
CC-23 - 3.1.3
CC-24 - 3.1.3 and 3.1.4
CC-25 - 3.1.3
CC-26 - 3.1.3
CC-27 - 3.1.3

ECC-1 + for UAAG we say if you do this make it accessible with multiple SCs.
ECC-2 + for UAAG we say if you do this make it accessible with multiple SCs.
ECC-3 UAAG +
ECC-4 + to 4.9.6
ECC-5 4.9.5

SL-1 3.1.3
SL-2 3.1.3
SL-3 +
SL-4 3.1.3
SL-5 3.1.2 and 3.1.3

T-2 +

Thanks,

Kelly, Jeanne and Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot [mailto:jfoliot@stanford.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:48 PM
To: Jim Allan; jeanne@w3.org; Kelly Ford
Cc: 'Janina Sajka'; 'Judy Brewer'
Subject: Howdy Over-worked UAAG gang!
Importance: High

Hi all!

So, in the spirit of "if you want to get it done, give it to a busy person"... 

I have a small request. We have taken the feedback previously supplied to us regarding media accessibility (with thanks), and we believe we have captured it as accurately as possible. We have now constructed a table
(matrix) which will be used to evaluate requirements, as well as provide some guidance to the implementors and mapped it back to other WAI documents including UAAG 2. The related/relevant work can be found at: 

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/index.php?title=Media_Accessibility_Che
cklist#ka

(It is a large 6 column table which should be properly marked with headers and IDs - the columns of importance are col 2 - the requirements, and col
5 - mappings against UAAG 2)

You will note that often the mapping cells will contain a plus sign - this is to indicate that the requirement is more fine-grained than the UAAG document requires (so question 1, is it?) and in some instances the global requirements are not mapped against any UAAG checkpoint (so question 2, is that correct?)

(as an aside, I also noted that some of the checkpoints in UAAG 2 are not mapped to an A, AA, AAA guideline, for example UAAG 2.0 4.9.8 and UAAG 2.0
4.9.11 - is this intentional?)

Finally, in the 6th column, I have taken a 1-person stab on also mapping to a MUST, SHOULD, MAY type criteria (a la RFC 2119) - again, I've taken a best-guess effort based on my experience and understanding, but would love some second opinions here.

Fully realizing that y'all are likely overwhelmed with existing work, I humbly ask that somebody find a few minutes to give this a once over and get back to me/us ASAP. I can do all the wiki mucking about, but request your subject matter expertise to ensure that we've got this right.

Thanking You in advance

JF

============================
John  Foliot
Program Manager
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Tel: 650-862-4603

---
Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media) http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page

============================
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 14:52:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 October 2010 14:52:12 GMT