Issues from Microsoft

I did an internal review of the most recent WCAG 2.0 draft with several people from around Microsoft.  Here is the list of issues we're concerned about.  These are roughly in priority order.

MS Issue #1
Tools for real-time captioning of streaming audio and video.  The techniques for xxx show markup in SMIL, which doesn't seem like it could be done in real-time on live broadcasts.  Are there tools for captioning streaming media in real-time?  Are those tools inexpensive and simple enough that small shops could use them to caption live media?  If not, we don't think this can be a requirement at level 2, perhaps not at all.  If there are such tools, we need techniques about them.

MS Issue #2
We're concerned that the audio description requirement is not very testable.  The definition of audio description includes the word "important", which is pretty subjective.  There are links in the understanding document to more detailed and objective standards of what needs to be described.   We think this type of information needs to be in the normative document.

MS Issue #3
Inconsistent language between 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.5.

4.1.1 Delivery units<appendixA.html> can be parsed unambiguously<appendixA.html> and the relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous.
4.1.2 The role, state, and value can be programmatically determined<appendixA.html> for every user interface component in the Web content that accepts input from the user or changes dynamically in response to user input or external events
4.1.5 Changes to content, structure, selection, focus, attributes, values, state, and relationships of the user interface elements in the Web content can be programmatically determined<appendixA.html>.
4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are about exposing the properties initially, and 4.1.5 is about ensuring that they stay exposed (and accurate) if they change.  Can we make the language in these three SCs more consistent, so it's easier to understand the relationship between them?  The language in 4.1.5 seems to be the most complete, so I'd vote for making the other two more like it.

MS Issue # 4
The success criteria in 4.1 don't seem to be about future technologies.  They're about ensuring that the user interface is operable through assistive technology.  Perhaps they should be under Principal 2?  If they don't fit under any of the existing guidelines there, maybe we need a guideline there about properties of UI elements being available to AT.

Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 00:55:53 UTC