- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:26:16 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20080219101549.02313098@mail.nist.gov>
As an action item from the February 11 ATAG WG call, I was asked to investigate how the Second Life application [1] would measure up against the ATAG2.0 success criteria (SCs) [2], and to identify what additional features would need to be added to ATAG to properly include applications such as Second Life.. While I didn't have time to do a more thorough analysis in this regard (I currently plan to do a more complete analysis later), after looking over some relevant content pertaining to the issue, a few preliminary impressions are possible.. I wanted to post this before the next teleconference for purposes of promoting discussion.. disclaimer - all of this is subject to change.. Would the Second Life viewer "stand-alone" application itself count as an authoring tool, or would other add-ons be separate authoring tools? Since (according to what I read from Linden Labs?) the Second Life viewer source code appears to be available under an "open-source" license, and thus developers are free to contribute in this regard, then what precisely are we calling an authoring tool for the purposes of ATAG2.0 conformance? What kind of authoring tool would Second Life be, or would it and its add-ons be a "collection" of authoring tools? Do we need to reexamine the ATAG2.0 definition of authoring tool to include applications such as Second Life? There are also other tutorials (found by searching on the topic) relating to interaction with and usage of Second Life - would these tutorials also need to be provided accessibly? For background, there have been numerous discussions (found by searching on the topic) about Second Life and accessibility, and some of these discussions have focused on issues in this regard (including the presence of CAPTCHA for registration, lack of keyboard shortcuts/preponderance of mouse-based actions, lack of voice chat capability/text-to-voice feature for chat, focus problems, lack of alternatives for object descriptions/"prim" labelling, need for "proximity" indicators for objects/avatars, need for text adjustable in terms of size/color, etc.). After a little investigation, I think it is possible that the "in-world" functions of Second Life, such as creating and interacting with objects/avatars and participating in marketplace/commerce, might present special challenges for the ATAG2.0 success criteria. In terms of the Second Life user interface, it may be unclear precisely how and to what extent the interface would measurably ensure that the relevant functionality is accessible, would properly support interoperability with assistive technologies, would in all cases follow the accessibility conventions of the relevant platforms, would properly display text alternatives for non-text objects, would adequately display synchronized alternatives for any synchronized media in Second Life, would adequately ensure that the interface is presented in different ways to different users, would make sure it is possible to see and hear the interface, would demonstrably ensure that all functionality is available from a keyboard, and would properly demonstrate time-independent interaction where appropriate. Much more research is needed.. It appears from reading relevant postings that some of these problems may be in the process of being addressed.. Furthermore, it may be unclear precisely how and to what extent the Second Life interface would prevent any flashing that could cause seizures, would properly provide navigation and editing via content structure, would properly provide all text search capabilities, would properly manage all user preference settings, would properly ensure any appropriate previews are as accessible as existing user agents, would properly make all text content readable and understandable, would properly make all functionality predictable, would demonstrably assist users in avoiding and correcting mistakes, and would document all accessibility features of the user interface. Again, much more research is needed.. It appears from reading relevant postings that some of these problems may be in the process of being addressed.. In terms of supporting the production of accessible content, it may be unclear precisely how and to what extent Second Life would properly support relevant technologies that enable the creation of accessible content, would properly ensure the preservation of all accessibility information, would adequately ensure any automatically-generated content is accessible, would properly prompt users to create accessible content, would properly assist users in checking for any accessibility problems, and would properly assist users in repairing any accessibility problems. NOTE: I mean users here to be "content creators". Again, much more research is needed.. It appears from reading relevant postings that some of these problems may be in the process of being addressed.. Furthermore, it is possible that there may be difficulties for Second Life in measurably assisting users in managing, editing, and reusing any equivalent alternatives for any non-text objects, in properly assisting users with interaction with any pre-authored content, in properly ensuring that accessible authoring actions are given sufficient prominence, in properly ensuring that any sequential authoring processes properly integrate accessible authoring practices, in adequately ensuring availability of all features that support the production of accessible content, in adequately ensuring that all features supporting the production of accessible content are documented, and in properly ensuring that any content creation/modification practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible. Again, much more research is needed.. It appears from reading relevant postings that some of these problems may be in the process of being addressed.. NOTE: It is possible that not all ATAG2.0 SC may properly apply to Second Life? What do we do in those instances? Since Second Life is a three-dimensional "virtual world" created entirely by its residents, and since residents can make "creations" (including movies), participate in "marketplace/commerce" activities with those creations, conduct "commerce" with Linden dollars, purchase "land" and "islands", and perform other "in-world" functions (such as "chat" with avatars, "problem-solve", and display "intelligence"), there may be additional capabilities required of ATAG in the future to accessibly handle these additional capabilities? Since multiplayer role-playing gaming capability, creativity and ownership capabilities, simulators, "in-world" footage, blogs, fansites, predefined tools used for building, as well as resident-run classes and tutorials, are all present in Second Life, and since these functions would need to be provided accessibly in the future, there may be additional requirements in this regard pertaining to future versions of ATAG? I didn't have time to take a detailed look at the ATAG2.0 Techniques [3] relevant to the previous discussion, but it is possible that some of the specific techniques indicated may be of benefit to making Second Life more accessible? Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST [1]: http://www.secondlife.com [2]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-20080206/WD-ATAG20-20080206.html [3]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20080206/WD- ATAG20-TECHS-20080206.html
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2008 14:28:06 UTC