Re: Proposed response to the WAIC public comment

To make this clearer - lets divide this into use cases

I have taken a crack at each use case below.   

Basically - if the author can choose a media format that will invoke an accessible player then they must if they want to make either a conformance or partial conformance claim. If they do not have a choice or any ability to control the media format/player then, if the media format/player cannot meet WCAG done the best they would be able to do is to make a partial conformance claim.

Here are the cases along with notes for information/comment


1)  The author chooses the video player embedded in their page (actual or invoked) 
	AND the author also has control of when it is updated.
	- here the author has control and partial conformance is not appropriate

2)  The author chooses the video player embedded in their page (actual or invoked) 
	BUT the author has NO control of when it is updated (and no choice to choose one that does).
 	BUT the player has a reputation for being accessible
	- here the author can claim conformance -- and just has to monitor the player and take action if it for some reason is not accessible.

3) Same as 2 but the player rarely is accessible.  Only on occasion or not at all.
	- page does not conform 
		if the author could have chosen an accessible player - there is no option.  partial conformance is not appropriate
		if the author had no choice  then the author can use partial conformance (which is a non-conformance statement with rationale)

4)  The  video player is invoked by the content and is a function of the platform or browser and not the author
	- If the author has no choice in the content/media - then partial conformance might be used.
	- if the author could have chosen a media format that would invoke an accessible player - then it IS a WCAG issue and the page is non-conformant.





Gregg
-----------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:

> I believe the crux of the issue sent to us is that the video player
> can be updated without notice. If that were not the case, this would
> be a much simpler discussion.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Loretta,
>> By creating blog entries or responding to emails, a user is creating content without going through the author. But the email application itself is solely under the author’s control and this interface cannot be changed by a user. I do not dispute for a moment that such an email application or an audio-video player for that matter is a widget and is also Web content. But I do not think the following references the actual application interface or widget-type of Web content:
>>> "Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional
>>> content added to them. For example, an email program, a blog, an
>>> article that allows users to add comments, or applications supporting
>> user-contributed content. ..."
>> 
>> Actual audio-video content uploaded to be rendered via a YouTube player is content like an email entry or blog entry. The YouTube or video player application is content like the email application that is not user modifiable.
>> That is the distinction I am trying to highlight though both constitute Web content.
>> So it is not clear why the draft document says the following:
>>> Your example describes the YouTube player as not under the author's
>>> control; it may be updated without notice. The independent update of
>>> the player does sound similar to the examples above, so it could be
>>> considered third party content.
>> 
>> About the Word/Excel viewer: I realized that was an inappropriate example soon after I sent that email.
>> Thanks,
>> Sailesh
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>