RE: Action 712

Hi Simon,

There is a lot going on in your message. Can you please list all of the success criteria that would be present in your rewording of Guideline 1.2?

Thanks,
Jan

-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Harper [mailto:simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk]
> Sent: April 10, 2012 12:05 PM
> To: UAWG list
> Subject: Action 712
> 
> The short answer is:
> 
> 1.2.1 In situations where missing or empty alternative content or associations
> can be identified, and when those elements achieve focus, the user agent
> will notify the user, and provide a mechanism to relate all available metadata
> to the user, upon their request. Thereby, enabling the user to take
> appropriate alternative action.
> 
> But please read on for the rationale.
> 
> I was again looking at 1.2.1 & 1.2.2. Let me refer to the previous email:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2012JanMar/0039.html
> 
> which says:
> 
> "Now we could do the easy thing and combine 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 mark it as AAA
> and expect no one to implement it. Or we could reduce our requirements
> and make it an A (which I think would help more disabled users). I'd forget
> the repair aspects and go for user inclusion instead
> - and I'd combine *all* 1.2.n into 1 A level guideline thus:
> 
> 1.2.1 In situations where missing or empty alternative content or associations
> can be identified, the user agent will provide notify when the element
> achieves focus, and upon their request, will relate all available metadata to
> the user, enabling the user to take appropriate alternative action.
> 
> I may also add aspects to a second AA/AAA SC saying that notifications could
> be ignored for selected components - or that a UA would facilitate a web
> search (based on resource filename - say) to assist the user in finding open
> access resources with alternative content already present.
> 
> I think the first suggestion should happen - I could understand why we may
> not wish to implement my second 2 suggestions (ignore and web-search)."
> 
> 
> 
> *Now for my update*
> 
> I've searched in the document for 'missing' and 'alternative' apart from 1.2.n
> the only relevant section I can find is 4.1.2. I think these are similar but
> different as 1.2.n is about provision to the user while
> 4.1.2 is about provision to AT.
> 
> Now as per my previous email - I think we need to do something drastic and
> so I think 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 should be changed to be about 'enabling the user to
> take appropriate alternative action' not about AAA repairs that a browser will
> never implement. Further I think that this means it looks a lot like '1.2.4
> Broken Alternative Content: The user can be notified when the user agent
> cannot render alternative content (e.g.
> when captions are broken).'
> 
> I think these three can be combined into:
> 
> 1.2.1 In situations where missing or empty alternative content or associations
> can be identified, and when those elements achieve focus, the user agent
> will notify the user, and provide a mechanism to relate all available metadata
> to the user, upon their request. Thereby, enabling the user to take
> appropriate alternative action.
> 
> I'm not even sure at this point I'd bother with current 1.2.3. After all as we
> provide for programmatic access then it is more likely an add on (or AT) will
> take care of this.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:56:03 UTC