W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: Action 712 (fast)

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:08:53 +0000
To: "simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk" <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
CC: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03A622A6@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi Simon,

Thanks for the list of changes...but what would be most helpful is a listing of the actual final proposed SCs. My guess from your emails is that the 4 SCs currently in GL1.2 will be replaced by just these two:

1.2.3 Repair Missing Associations: The user can specify whether or not the user agent should attempt to predict associations from author-specified presentation attributes (i.e. position and appearance). (Level AAA) ## DONE TPAC

1.2.X HANDLE ???: 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. Level???


-- 
(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 11, 2012 3:00 AM
> To: Richards, Jan
> Cc: UAWG list
> Subject: Re: Action 712
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> So let me try and simplify:
> 1) I think 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are redundant - no one will implement them at AAA,
> and technology isn't really good enough just yet; but we should present the
> information we have (the information we would have to present to the
> computational algorithm for it to try and repair) to the user.
> 2) lets remove both 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
> 3) 1.2.4 seems good but needs extending with the remnants of 1.2.1 and
> 1.2.2 so that it presents the information (the information we would have to
> present to the computational algorithm - 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 - for it to try and
> repair) too.
> 4) 1.2.3 is aspirational and seems OK - it's not much possible right now but
> we've agreed it so it's fine. I think 1.2.3 gets applied first and then
> (1.2.1+.2+.4) my suggestion when 1.2.3 fails.
> 
> I'd also say my suggestion could be applied in the case of a missing
> association too - in that we recognize something is missing, the user is
> notified, if they ask for it the (form field, say) information is provided to
> them.
> 
> Does this clarify?
> 
> Si.
> 
> PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response
> please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.
> 
> =======================
> Simon Harper
> http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
> 
> University of Manchester (UK)
> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
> 
> 
> On 10/04/12 18:55, Richards, Jan wrote:
> > 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
> >
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 14:09:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 April 2012 14:09:23 GMT