- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:33:58 -0700
- To: "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc." <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi, Makoto, First, we will assume that the video player is web content, that is, it is implemented in a scripting language rather than as a user agent. In this case, the video player, including its controls, must meet WCAG requirements. If it were not the case that the video player could be updated automatically, without action or approval by the web site author, it would definitely not be third party content. Authors often use libraries provided by third parties, for example, but that does not make the content appropriate for partial conformance. In this case, either the video player conformed to WCAG or it did not. If it did not, then the page containing the video would not conform. Since your question stated that the video player could be updated automatically without approval from the web site author, it becomes more like the content of a feed that changes very slowly. This would be the reason that partial conformance might be used if the web site author was not prepared to repair any accessibility problems introduced by an updated video player. Loretta, On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear WCAG working group, > > Thank you very much for addressing this issue. May I ask you > additional questions? > > Are the media controls of embedded video player appropriate for > partial conformance in the first place? > > "Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content" in WCAG 2.0 states: > - "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." > - "it is not possible to know at the time of original posting what > the uncontrolled content of the pages will be." > > The media controls are not "additional content" added to the web page. > They already exist at the time of original posting. And it is possible > for the author to know how the media controls would be presented to > users at the time of original posting. > > Is partial conformance also appropriate for the uncontrolled content > which won't "later have additional content"? > The media controls may be updated without notice, but it doesn't mean > that they will be added after the time of original posting. > > Email messages in "an email program", articles on "a blog", user's > comments in "an article that allows users to add comments" and > user-contributed content in "applications supporting user-contributed > content" doesn't exist at the time of original posting and will be > added later. But the media controls exist at the time of original > posting. This is the difference and we thought that the media controls > are not appropriate for partial conformance in the first place. > > Additional clarification on this point will also be very helpful and > appreciated. > > Thank you very much again for your discussion. > > > Makoto Ueki > Vice-chairman of WAIC > > > 2010/10/26 Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>: >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > <以下、署名> > > 株式会社インフォアクシア > 植木 真 <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> > > 104-0054 > 東京都中央区勝どき1丁目13-6 プラザタワー勝どき 3011 > TEL：03-5547-5777 FAX：03-5547-5778 > -------------------------------------------------------- > Webアクセシビリティのポータルサイト > Infoaxia - Everything for Your Awareness and Practice - > http://www.infoaxia.com/ >
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 22:34:37 UTC