- From: Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:05:49 +0100
- To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <14C0E778294B30498B5912136BFA6F5702160C41BCC6@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
while we are on this topic, we may as well look at how this is handled in iOS. so far as I can tell, VoiceOver text to speech gets the highest priority when another audio source is playing. If a web page starts playing audio automatically, if you perform an action like exploring the screen, the web page audio is automatically reduced by a sufficient degree so that text to speech is understandable. Once the TTS has finished reading out what it is supposed to read out, the web page volume is brought back up to its previous level. This could potentially be a technique for iOS. Since VoiceOver is the only screen reader available/allowed on iOS, there is very little chance of this technique failing. It is also an easily discoverable feature for end-users.
The only way for this to fail would be if someone created a self-voicing web browser application for the iOS platform and required users to turn off VoiceOver.
Just a thought.
Regards,
Kiran Kaja
Accessibility Program Manager
Adobe Systems
+447833091999 (Mobile)
+44 1628590005 (Direct)
kkaja@adobe.com<mailto:kkaja@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/kirankaja12
From: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
Sent: 27 June 2013 21:45
To: David MacDonald
Cc: WCAG
Subject: Re: Revisiting whether & when we might write a technique related to SC 1.4.2 and OS per-app volume settings [was Re: Question about SC 1.4.2 - can this be met by relying on Windows (or otherwise the platform or user agent) to do it for you?]
David,
Is 1.4.4 invalidated? No. It is just met automatically most of the time (by pretty universal user-agent zoom), and responsible authors check to make sure they didn't break it (and it can be broken - e.g. with embedded content rendered by plug-ins, etc.).
What is being discussed, I think, is the first step toward 1.4.2 being met automatically most of the time, through the possible creation of a success technique that works today - in a more cumbersome way than would be ideal (though arguably no MORE cumbersome than on existing web pages) - on two OS releases.
Regards,
Peter
On 6/27/2013 1:16 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
Aren't we just basically invalidating 1.4.2 and letting authors say "it's not my problem my music bugs you, learn your os? I'm not convinced ...
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-06-27, at 2:11 PM, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com<mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com>> wrote:
Just a few opinions from me:
1. I think there is probably no reason this couldn't be a sufficient technique, with the usual accessibility support caveats
2. Publishing it as a WCAG technique only helps in making authors more aware of it. It does not help with the problem of how to reach end users who would be expected to know about this setting.
3. Do we really think that documenting this particular technique, which has the issues that have been discussed, is a more important use of our time than all of the other potential work the WG has before us? (That said, we've probably spent more time discussing it than it would take to write it up.)
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
Colleagues (and especially Gregg),
Given the note from Christophe below pointing out that we have a second desktop OS that offers this functionality (Linux with GNOME), and a message earlier today from Ramón Corominas pointing out that we have techniques for PDF accessibility that appear to only work on a single platform (Windows), I find myself wondering if there we aren't being consistent in when WCAG may publish a technique for meeting a success criteria.
It seems to me the argument now boils down to "too few users know about this option" (since the argument "this option isn't available in enough places" doesn't seem to have prevented PDF techniques).
If that is the case, then wouldn't publishing a technique - which made clear it required recent versions of Windows and/or GNOME - BE a way of getting more publicity for this? And wouldn't it BE a way to better bring it to the attention of user agent & platform creators?
Regards,
Peter
On 6/27/2013 7:57 AM, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
Hi,
Am Do, 27.06.2013, 07:02 schrieb Peter Korn:
David,
I started this thread after reading a computer advice columnist describe
this feature to a supplicant who was complaining about websites
automatically playing sounds/music, which interfered with his enjoyment
of the music he was already playing from some other (non-web) app. And
I realized... we have a potential electronic curb cut here!
So I brought it to this group seeking discussion and insights - which
I've received!
And if I may summarize the discussion/insights:
* Technically this is a way to meet this SC (assuming you are running
on Windows 7 or some other OS that offers this feature)
* Some are dubious this would be approved as a formal WCAG technique,
for several different reasons
* Some like this approach as it offers a single choke point vs. the
work that every web page author would have to do
My own sense is that this functionality would be worth advertising more
widely, so folks knew about it,
The "technique" is listed in "Better Web Browsing: Tips for Customizing
Your Computer" at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/browsing#volume><http://www.w3.org/WAI/users/browsing#volume>. The link
related to Windows 7 points to a Microsoft webpage with a video that also
shows the mixer.
Best regards,
Christophe
PS: GNOME's sound volume also allows you to set the volume on an
application basis, but the Applications tab on the sound settings dialog
only displays applications that are currently rendering sound. See the
screen shots at
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VolumeControl#User_Experience><https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VolumeControl#User_Experience>. I
did a quick test with Firefox and YouTube on Fedora 18, set the volume for
Firefox to a much lower volume than overall system volume, and the system
seemed to remember the Firefox volume both after restarting the browser
and after restarting the OS.
and we gained some more experience with
users using it - and then the extent to which they liked/disliked it.
More OSes might be persuaded to offer functionality like this. User
agents might be persuaded to offer this functionality directly. And
both OSes and user agents might find ways to offer the functionality
with fewer steps.
And then somewhere along the continuum of these potential user agent /
platform improvements, it might be sufficiently widespread and
sufficiently easy that there would be little objection to adding this as
a sufficient technique, similar to how we treat browser zoom.
Because doing this once and easily in a single place has got to be
preferable to every audio-playing browser page implementing it in their
own way...
Regards,
Peter
On 6/26/2013 6:17 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
Hi Peter
1.4.4 language came after many iterations ... I would probably be
loath to hold it up as a jumping off precedent...
the techniques for 1.4.4 are about “not interfering” with the browsers
natural ability to zoom... there is no advice to users, except in an
indirect way ... it’s to the authors...
Perhaps we could create a failure if authors interfere with the OS
natural ability to turn down the volume of the browser like we do in
1.4.4... but it leaves me scratching my head.
I’m probably coming to this discussion a bit late, and I’m not sure
what problem that we are trying to solve with these contortions...
perhaps there is some good reason... if so perhaps I’ll join in the
“contorting” after a June 30 deadlines...
Cheers
David MacDonald
**
*Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*//
/Adapting the web to *all* users/
/Including those with disabilities/
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.Can-Adapt.com> <http://www.can-adapt.com/><http://www.can-adapt.com/>
*From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
*Sent:* June-26-13 6:36 PM
*To:* David MacDonald
*Cc:* james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>; 'Adam Solomon'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden';
'WCAG'; kirsten@can-adapt.com<mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com>
*Subject:* Re: Question about SC 1.4.2 - can this be met by relying on
Windows (or otherwise the platform or user agent) to do it for you?
David,
I'm curious - how is this "user technique" of the user turning down or
muting the volume of their user agent in their OS any different from
another "user technique" of the user having their web user agent
enlarge the content on a web page (as a mechanism for meeting SC 1.4.4
Resize Text)?
In other words, how is G142: Using a technology that has
commonly-available user agents that support zoom
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G142><http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G142> any
different form a potential technique like: "Using a technology that
can independently adjust or mute user agent volume levels"?
Both are "user techniques" rather than "authoring techniques". And
both tend to always work (though both should be tested; I can imagine
some hacky ways of bypassing OS-level volume settings using downloaded
native code).
Peter
On 6/26/2013 3:10 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
Right you are James,
It’s down an extra layer in the mixer, so this volume would have
to be off before the person starts surfing. No way to get to it
with music playing.
It is not so much an authoring technique, it is a user technique,
and we generally don’t get into telling folks how to use their own
technology, although we have a few examples in the techniques, of
user agent notes with JAWS commands...
But I think we need a bright line between Authoring techniques for
our “Authoring Guidelines” and strategies for users... the latter
is not an authoring technique which is our mandate.
Cheers
David MacDonald
**
*Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
/Adapting the web to *all* users/
/Including those with disabilities/
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.Can-Adapt.com> <http://www.can-adapt.com/><http://www.can-adapt.com/>
*From:*james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com> <mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com><mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
[mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
*Sent:* June-26-13 5:13 PM
*To:* David MacDonald
*Cc:* Adam Solomon; Gregg Vanderheiden; Peter Korn; WCAG;
kirsten@can-adapt.com<mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com> <mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com><mailto:kirsten@can-adapt.com>
*Subject:* Re: Question about SC 1.4.2 - can this be met by
relying on Windows (or otherwise the platform or user agent) to do
it for you?
On my version of windows 7 I can reduce the volume of Firefox/ie
without reducing my jaws volume.
On Jun 26, 2013, at 14:07, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>
<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca><mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
I just checked this... it turns off the Screen Reader also, so
no I would say not.
The whole point is so the screen reader can be hear without
music drowning it out.
Cheers
David MacDonald
**
*Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
/Adapting the web to *all* users/
/Including those with disabilities/
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.Can-Adapt.com> <http://www.can-adapt.com/><http://www.can-adapt.com/>
*From:*Adam Solomon [mailto:adam.solomon2@gmail.com]
*Sent:* June-26-13 4:40 PM
*To:* Gregg Vanderheiden
*Cc:* Peter Korn; WCAG
*Subject:* Re: Question about SC 1.4.2 - can this be met by
relying on Windows (or otherwise the platform or user agent)
to do it for you?
Would it not be sufficient to be in an environment where one
has access to, but is not limited to windows 7? We have
considered techniques that have support only in certain
browsers, especially the infamous "headers technique" relying
on a plugin. With regard to web technology I believe we have
said in the meetings that support for a certain technique does
not have to be across the board. Is an operating system
different in this regard?
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden
<gv@trace.wisc.edu<mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu> <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu><mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>> wrote:
Yes that would be a technique if you are in an environment
that guarantees that only Windows 7 (or whatever versions) are
used by people viewing the web page. Not sure how you would
enforce that. Otherwise it would not work.
So we couldn’t list it as a sufficient tech I wouldn’t think.
/Gregg/
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International -
http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -
http://GPII.net
On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>
<mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com><mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
Colleagues,
I was recently reminded that Windows 7 (and perhaps
earlier) has a nice feature in the "Volume Mixer" panel,
which provides support for independent, per-application
setting of the volume level (including per-application
muting). This specifically allows me to turn down or off
the volume of all audio coming from my web user agent.
Would you agree that this would be "a mechanism [that] is
available to control audio volume independently from the
overall system volume level", such that web pages/apps
running on Windows 7 could automatically meet SC 1.4.2
Audio Control?
If so, is this perhaps a potential new success technique
for us? Something like "Running on a platform or user
agent that allows the volume level to be adjusted or muted
either by the user agent or on a per-application basis"?
On the other hand... would doing this effectively prevent
the use of cloud-based AT? If I'm not mistaken, we
typically haven't done a lot in our techniques that
contemplates web-delivered/cloud-based AT...
Regards,
Peter
--
<oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/><http://www.oracle.com/>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:%2B1%20650%205069522> <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
<green-for-email-sig_0.gif>
<http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the
environment
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:%2B1%20650%205069522> <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
--
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com><http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:%2B1%20650%205069522> <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment><http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
--
<oracle_sig_logo.gif><http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
<green-for-email-sig_0.gif><http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
--
[cid:image001.gif@01CE73FE.8DC72890]<http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
[cid:image002.gif@01CE73FE.8DC72890]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: image001.gif
- image/gif attachment: image002.gif
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 12:06:29 UTC