RE: Issues from Microsoft

Hi Cynthia

 

Good comments.  Thanks.

 

Couple of notes / questions.

 

RE Issue #1 - Question to everyone - can you post any information you have
on tools that address Cynthia's question/comment - so that we can be sure to
log them and use them per comment below. 

 

RE Issue #2 - Cynthia, can you say specifically what information is more
specific and objective.  Would be great to capture that.  Better yet - can
you provide a specific suggested edit for including that in the definition
of audio description?   That would greatly increase our ability to consider
it for inclusion.

 

RE Issue #3

 - 4.1.5 is not about ensuring they stay exposed really.  It is about making
sure that AT know when some of the thousands of elements it can 'see' have
changed or been deleted without having to keep checking each of them every
second.    

-   4.1.1 is a completely different topic from the rest of 4.1.x items.  So
much so that we considered for awhile separating it.  

- I just noticed that the wordings in your post below are not the currently
proposed wordings  (see previous posting and the survey)  the new proposed
wordings are pasted below for convenience.   

 

Do these work better for you?  

 

Gregg

 

 

 

 

{NOTE  I put Web Units in where they would now go replacing the old term}

4.1.1 Web Units
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Web_Pages_%28including_Web_
Applications%29&action=edit>  can be parsed unambiguously and the
relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous. 

4.1.2 For each user interface component in the content, the name
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Name&action=edit> , role
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Role&action=edit> , and all
perceivable properties
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Perceivable_properties&acti
on=edit>  can be programmatically determined
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_determined
&action=edit> . 

4.1.4 Content and properties of user interface components can be
programmatically set
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_set&action
=edit>  directly to any values to which they can be set through the user
interface. 

Note: Some examples of standardized properties that typically can be changed
by the user interface include its value, whether it is currently selected,
and whether it currently has the focus. 

4.1.5 Any changes to user interface components in the content can be
programmatically determined
<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_determined
&action=edit>  without having to compare current and past values to detect
change. 

 

Becky also suggested 

4.1.4 Values for content and attributes of user interface components which
can be set through the user interface can be set programmatically.

 

 

 

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Cynthia Shelly
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:56 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 can be parsed unambiguously and the relationships in
the resulting data structure are also unambiguous. 

4.1.2 The role, state, and value can be programmatically determined 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. 

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.