RE: review of section 5

It is my understanding that with embedded objects, the browser, such as IE,
truly does not know what the object is.  That being the case, the "device"
that is actually rendering the content would be the plug in, not the
graphical browser.  Hence, a media player plug in would be the user agent in
this case, and would have to meet all of the accessibility requirements.

Denis Anson

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of James Allan
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:22 AM
To: WAI UA group
Subject: review of section 5

my comments preceded by ja:
ja: In reviewing section 5 for SMIL/multimedia accessibility I had one major
question.

Is a plugin (SMIL player, shockwave, insert your favorite plugin here...) a
user agent?

I have always assumed that a plugin was a user agent and would conform to
user interface accessibility as well as other appropriate guidelines. But,
the UA guidelines do not specifically address this point.

5.1.10 [Priority 1]
Allow the user to control the position of captions.

ja: Captions are not one size fit all, in addition to caption placement
there is a need for

        5.1.10.1 [Priority 1]
        Allow the user to override font family of the caption.
        5.1.10.2 [Priority 1]
        Allow the user to override font size of the caption.
        5.1.10.3 [Priority 1]
        Allow the user to override foreground color of the caption.
        5.1.10.4 [Priority 1]
        Allow the user to override background color of the caption.

5.2.6 [Priority 1]
Allow the user specify that captions for video be rendered at the same time
as the video.

ja: Similar to audio tracks, captions may be available in different
languages. There is a need for

        5.2.x [Priority 1]
        Allow the user to choose from among available caption tracks.

5.2.7 [Priority 2]
Allow the user specify that audio descriptions of video be rendered at the
same time as the video.

ja: In discussion with the folks a WGBH, it was recommended that this
checkpoint be changed to a Priority 1. Scenario-video showing professor
writing complex equations and graphs on the overhead and discussing them but
not describing what he/she actually wrote on the overhead. Without
description this would be inaccessible to people with visual impairments.
This could be generalize to any video presentation of visually rich or
complex information where the visually presented information is critical to
the understanding of the presentation.

ja: additionally, there may also be description tracks in different
languages, there is no evidence of this yet so a Priority 2 is recommended.
So there is a need for

        5.2.x [Priority 2]
        Allow the user to choose from among available audio description
tracks.


Jim Allan, Statewide Technical Support Specialist
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9453  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 1999 11:11:06 UTC