FW: Open issues for 1.1 - a start

 
Thanks Ben

OK
I have made recommendations based on Bens processing.

I have numbered them   

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9


Please post a note on any that you do NOT agree with. 
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Caldwell
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:03 PM
To: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
Subject: Open issues for 1.1 - a start


Hi all,

I just looked through the 9 open issues on 1.1 - here's a quick summary of
where we stand at the moment. I've divided it into two parts, issues that
can wait until we're through last call and issues that we should discuss and
or propose changes and close this round.

Comments, suggestions, proposals, etc. are welcome.

-Ben




Section 1: Issues that require no action at this time (6 issues)

================
#1 - RECOMMEND WE SET CATEGORY TO C3 (PER Ben) AND POSTPONE TIL AFTER LAST
CALL.

Issue 666 - UA support for obtaining textual descriptions and extraneous
links <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=666>

Given current UA support for text alternatives and metadata, this is an
advisory technique (and therefore a category 3 issue). Recommend postponing
discussion on this issue until after the Last Call draft.



----

#2 - THIS IS NON-NORMATIVE AND AUTOMATICALLY C2 - OFF OUR PLATES.
Issue 937 - Examples for Guideline 1.1
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=937>

Category 2 issue. Recommend postponing discussion on this issue until after
the Last Call draft.

----

#3 - THIS IS CATEGORY C1.  WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS ONE. RECOMMEND WE TALK
ABOUT THIS NEXT WEEK AFTER THE DISCUSSION THURSDAY. (SAME AS Ben)

Issue 1104 - NOEMBED not widely used or recognized.
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1104>

Recommend that we revisit this issue following discussions about the
definition of programmatically determined and what is meant by supported by
assistive technology and what criteria a technique should meet before it can
be considered sufficient.  We currently have a draft technique on use of
<noembed> with <embed> but need to discuss whether this should be considered
a sufficient technique given UA support.

----
#4 - THIS IS CATEGORY C1.  WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS ONE.  RECOMMEND WE TALK
ABOUT THIS NEXT WEEK AFTER THE DISCUSSION THURSDAY. (SAME AS Ben)

Issue 1877 - remove deprecated elements from examples
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1877>

Similar to 1104 - Recommend that we revisit this issue following 
discussions about the definition of programmatically determined and what 
is meant by supported by assistive technology and what criteria a 
technique should meet before it can be considered sufficient.

----

#5 - THIS IS CATEGORY C1.  WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS ONE.  RECOMMEND BEN ID
THE AUTHOR AND ASK FOR CLARIFICATION OR PASS TO ONE OF CHAIRS TO ASK FOR
CLARIFICATION.

Issue 1138 - Higher priority for text alternatives for non-text content?
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1138>

Needs clarification from reviewer.

----

#6 - RECOMMEND WE CLOSE THIS ONE BASED ON UW AND TECHNIQUES DOCS AS THEY ARE
CURRENTLY WRITTEN.  

Issue 1784 - include an example with long description
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1784>

This should be addressed by the draft technique titled, "Providing a 
long description in text near the non-text content with a reference to 
the location of the long description in the short description" 
<http://tinyurl.com/dslw5>. Recommend closing this issue once this 
techniques draft has been published.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2: Issues that require discussion/proposals (3 issues)

#7 - INTENT IS CLEARLY SCRAMBLED WITH TEXT THAT DOES NOT BELONG.  I THINK
ONE OF JOHNS INTRO SENTENCES GOT ATTACHED TO THE WRONG INTENT.   RECOMMEND
WE CLOSE THIS ONE WITH THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTED CHANGE TO INTENT.

CHANGE INTENT TO READ:   
For multimedia and live single media non-text content (live audio-only or
live video-only) it is important at level 1 for users to at least be able to
identify what the content is - even if full text alternatives are not
required at level 1.  A descriptive label is therefore specified for these
categories that are exceptions from success criterion 1.1.1.   Other
requirements may also apply in Guideline 1.2 but this success criterion if
focused on ensuring that the items can at least be identified even if not
played or able to be played by the user. 

NOTE:  THIS IS NOW 1.1.2 



Issue 1800 - SC 1.1.1 - text equivalent for multimedia
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1800>

This one includes a number of questions and comments about the use of 
the word "identify" in SC 1.1.1. This SC has been updated, but 1.1.2 
still uses the term. 1.1.2 now reads:

1.1.2  For multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content, text 
alternatives identify the content with a descriptive label. (See also, 
Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.)

I think the intent for How to meet 1.1.2 is in need of revision to 
better match the changes that were made to this SC in the Dec. 16 
Editors draft and to clarify some of the questions raised in this 
issues. It currently reads:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that the function of 
non-text content, such as images used as submit buttons, is available in 
text form. In some cases, for example, when functional content that is 
very complex, it is not possible for authors to describe the function of 
non-text content in a text alternative. In these cases, the purpose of 
the functional non-text content is identified in the alternative.

----

#8 - RECOMMEND WE CLOSE THIS ONE WITH THE COMMENT.  The working group
already considered that word and rejected it because it was pointed out that
all experiences provide some information and there is always some purpose
beyond pure sensory experience to almost anything that was posted on the
web.  The working group handles this issue with the word "primarily" in the
definition which now reads "non-text content that causes a sensory
experience that does not primarily convey important information or perform a
function." 

Issue 1801 - SC 1.1.3 - content intended to create a specific sensory 
experience
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1801>

Includes suggestions to add "only" (non-text content that is only 
intended to create a specific sensory experience) and raises issues 
about whether the definition of "specific sensory experience is 
sufficiently clear.

Recommendation: Consider proposals and review definition for clarity.

----

#9 - RECOMMEND WE CLOSE THIS ONE AS Ben SUGGETST BELOW 

Issue 1802 - SC 1.1.4 - add example to clarify
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1802>

The reviewer writes:

1.1.4  Non-text content that is not functional, is not used to convey 
information, and does not create a
specific sensory experience is implemented such that it can be ignored 
by assistive technology.

Don:  Here, an example would be perfect after the word "technology," as 
in "such as in alt=" ".  As written
now, not one developer I know will know how to implement this since none 
of them know what assistive
technology will and will not ignore.

(Note, in  his submission, Don explains that he has reviewed WCAG only, 
without consulting the How To
Use documents, since he believes that this is the way many developers 
will operate, and that it is
important that WCAG be self-sufficient and clear on its own.)

Recommendation: Close this issue with the following comment:
	Examples are provided in How to meet 1.1.4.

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 03:19:48 UTC