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

Re: Action 712 (fast)

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:30:29 -0400
Message-ID: <4F85BFB5.3000707@w3.org>
To: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
The grammar is a little awkward.  I would propose:

Delete 1.2.1 & 1.2.2

Add:
1.2.X Provide Available Information: If missing or empty alternative 
content or associations are recognized, the user agent will notify the 
user and provide a mechanism to relate all available metadata to the 
user upon request. (Level AA)

______________________________________________

Existing:
1.2.1 Repair Missing Alternatives:

The user can specify whether or not the user agent should generate and 
render repair text (e.g. file name) when it recognizes that the author 
has not provided alternative content. (Level A) @@ 712

1.2.2 Repair Empty Alternatives:

The user can specify whether or not the user agent should generate and 
render repair text (e.g. file name) when it recognizes that the author 
has provided empty alternative content. (Level AAA) @@ 712

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

1.2.4 Broken Alternative Content:

The user can be notified when the user agent cannot render alternative 
content (e.g. when captions are broken). (Level AAA)## DONE 5 April 2012



On 4/11/2012 10:32 AM, Jim Allan wrote:
> Jan,
> I think you've captured it.
> The level from 1.2.x from Simon's emails is more than AAA. On a basic
> level (missing alts, mismatched or missing label/id) this is
> implementable. I am sure there are more complex
> alternatives/associations with HTML or other technologies. I can live
> with AA level. I agree that there is little likely hood of anyone
> complying with 1.2.x at AAA.
>
> Jim
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Richards, Jan<jrichards@ocadu.ca>  wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
_______________________________
Jeanne Spellman
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
jeanne@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:30:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:30:44 GMT