W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa-admin@w3.org > June 2018

Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): FPWD of Revised CAPTCHA Note

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:37:06 +0100
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Accessible Platform Architectures Administration <public-apa-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c4c88f6a-c362-f9a0-c94f-4c696d8b2386@tink.uk>
+1 (with thanks for addressing my concerns during the initial review).


On 25/06/2018 17:31, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Colleagues:
> 
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> Architectures (APA) Working Group on the publication of a First Public
> Working Draft (FPWD) of an updated and revised "Inaccessibility of
> CAPTCHA" document:
> 
> "https://rawgit.com/w3c/apa/1f5febb77be9c09906899174ae21e5ff7302e443/captcha/index.html
> 
> Please note the quick turnaround on this CfC. Comments are due by close
> of business Boston time Wednesday. If you need more time, please advise.
> 
> A revision and update of our 2004 W3C Note has long been on our agenda.
> Thanks to assistance from our Research Questions Task Force (RQTF), we
> finally have a document we believe can shortly update our published
> guidance on this topic. We are seeking wide review in the FPWD process.
> We are also expecting at least one more draft publication seeking wide
> review call before finalizing our updated document as a W3C Note.
> 
> Please review the document at the above URI. Please note that several
> editorial tweaks are expected before publication as a FPWD, but no
> substantive changes are contemplated.
> 
> *       ACTION TO TAKE
> 
> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
> support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
> messages of support are certainly welcome.
> 
> If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
> proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
> than 5:00 PM close of business Boston Time, Tuesday 27 June.
> 
> Janina
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Janina Sajka
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my proposed feedback to the Timed Text Working Group:
> 
> <draft-feedback>
> 
>  1. While we appreciate that TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles
>     and Captions 1.1 <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/> is depending
>     on Timed Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2)
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/>, it should still include an
>     introduction that guides the reader to a better understanding of its
>     content.  Such an introduction could respond to the following questions:
>      1. Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only
>         captions/subtitles?
>      2. What are typical use cases for a image-only captions/subtitles?
>      3. What is the purpose of a presentation processor, and a
>         transformation processor?
> 
>  2. There is a general issue with the way that an author specifies
>     layout characteristics of captions and subtitles, such as font size,
>     font family, line height, background and positioning.  The spec
>     describes the approach of the author specifying a “fixed layout” for
>     captions and subtitles that the user cannot change.  However, it
>     must be possible for the user to overwrite the author’s choice of
>     font size, or background color, for example. This is necessary for
>     accessibility reasons, in the same way that browsers allow the user
>     to change font size and background color.  How can we find a good
>     solution for these conflicting interests between author and user? 
>     We would like to get into a discussion with you on this issue. 
> 
>  3. Section 2 Documentation Conventions (applies also to Timed Text
>     Markup Language 2 (TTML2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/> section
>     2.3). For accessibility of the spec, information such as whether an
>     element is deprecated or obsoleted should not be indicated by color
>     (or background color) alone (cf. WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1
>     <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#visual-audio-contrast-without-color>).
> 
> 
>  4. Section 5.1 General. The method of associating a text profile
>     document instance with an image profile document instance should be
>     specified for interoperability reasons, and not be left open to the
>     specific implementation.  Also, the association should be in both
>     ways, i.e. also from the image profile document instance to the text
>     profile document instance.
> 
>  5. Section 6 Supported Features and Extensions. All font-related
>     features are prohibited for the image profile. This seems to be an
>     unnecessary restriction if the image profile contains images in SVG
>     format which could be rendered differently based on the author’s
>     choice of font characteristics.
> 
>  6. Section 7.7.3 itts:forcedDisplay. This seems like a temporary
>     solution. Wouldn’t it be better to define semantic layers of
>     information that each could be made visible and invisible at runtime
>     as appropriate for the user?  For example, the user may want to see
>     either speech-only (subtitles), narration speech only (parts of
>     subtitles), foreign-language speech-only (parts of subtitles) or any
>     combination of them. 
> 
>  7. Section 7.7.4 itts:altText.  While we see this feature as useful for
>     accessibility purposes, it should be mandatory for images rather
>     than recommended only. As mentioned in the spec, one could take the
>     pertaining text passage from the text profile document instance –
>     but (1) an accompanying text profile is not required, and (2) the
>     alternative text for the image could be different from the textual
>     caption. Therefore, the itts:altText element should always be
>     specified, but it should be empty for decorative images (not clear
>     if a “decorative image” used as a caption makes sense anyway). By
>     requiring an itts:altText for every image, but allowing for an empty
>     element in case of a decorative image, we would align it with the
>     alt attribute in HTML5 for images.
> 
> </draft-feedback>
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Gottfried
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Issue Tracker 
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:29
> An: public-apa@w3.org
> Betreff: apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media 
> subtitles and captions 1.1 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
> 
> apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and 
> captions 1.1 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
> 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152
> 
> Assigned to: Gottfried Zimmermann
> 

-- 
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
Received on Monday, 25 June 2018 17:37:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:22:53 UTC