RE: History of semi-automated in ATAG2 B.2.3.2

Hi Alex,

I think it was just because "automatically repair" has the no author involved connotation. So when we were asked to tighten up the language in other areas, I added it in to my proposal.

Cheers,
-Jan

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca<mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca>

From: Alex Li [mailto:alli@microsoft.com]
Sent: May-24-13 2:43 PM
To: Richards, Jan; AUWG
Subject: RE: History of semi-automated in ATAG2 B.2.3.2

I fail to understand how addressing MS2, MS3, IBM18, and IBM19 would result in semi-automatic being added... I hope you have better memory.

From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 11:19 AM
To: Alex Li; AUWG
Subject: History of semi-automated in ATAG2 B.2.3.2

OK, here's some history (I will address whether semi-automated belongs there in another msg)...

In the Last Call (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-ATAG20-20120410/#sc_b232 ) it reads:
B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions: If the authoring tool automatically suggests text alternatives for non-text content during the authoring session, then the text alternatives may only be suggested under the following conditions: (Level A)
    (a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and
    (b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g., suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

Alex sent a message commenting that:
"The wording "text alternatives may only be suggested under the following conditions" under B.2.3.2 makes it sounds like text alternative suggestion is not a good practice.  Please make minor reword to remove the negative connotation."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/0045.html

So I started hacking on it and ended up suggesting a change that went further than your comment in order for it to align with a reworded B.2.3.3 which was reworded based your comment (in the same email) that the wording was "illogical". B.2.3.3 became "Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions":
Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts tp automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
(a) Suitable Text Sources: Repair strings are only ever derived from text sources designed to fulfill the same purpose as the text alternative (e.g., suggesting an image's "description" metadata field as a long description). Other text attributes (e.g., the file name, file format) or generic strings (e.g. "image") are not used.
(b) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content; and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012AprJun/att-0047/ATAG2-CommentResponses_20124010LC.html

On 16 July 2012 we accepted the new wording (Present: Jan, Jeanne, Cherie, Alex, Greg, Sueann, Tim_Boland).
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0008.html
"<Jan> B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions: If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true: (Level A)
<Jan> (a) No generic or irrelevant strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
resolved: Accept the proposal for B.2.3.2 and B.2.3.3 with minor changes as above.
"
Cheers,
Jan



---



Q: B.2.3.2



Alex: When did we add "semi-automatically" in the SC text? What does that mean? Is that testable? I'm okay with the rest.



JR: It was always there and is a define term (http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120924/#def-Semi-Automated-Checking) - though a link is MISSIING in the document - that basically means that a person's judgement is required. For example, showing a alt field in an image insertion dialog filled with "Image" would be a failing semi-automated repair. Not showing the field and simply putting "Image" into the markup would be a failing fully automated repair.

AL: the term "semi-automatic" was not in B.2.3.2, at least not in the last public draft.  If it was added later on, I have no memory of it.  Also, the definition is about checking, but the context here is about suggesting alt-text.  That's not checking.  Even at the practical level, how does an authoring tool semi-automatically make a suggestion?  Are you saying that the author would do something like ask the authoring tool to make a suggestion of alt-text instead of having one suggested by default?  I guess that is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.



JR2: I'm looking into where this changed and why...



---





Cheers,

Jan