- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 10:34:38 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
- Cc: Cindy.King@gallaudet.edu
** Revisit original comment raising issue: I am afraid that I misunderstood the original comment. The original comment does not raise any arguments about how fine or coarse the adjustment needs to be. The arguments in this comment are 1) undue burden (evidence: not done now) 2) insufficient necessity (opinion: information extraction is hard but not impossible if this function is missing) ** Analysis As far as the first argument is concerned, I believe that the Working Group is addressing this and I don't want to comment right here. As for the second argument, this appears to me to be a claim that Checkpoint 2.6 requiring [the capability for] synchronized display of caption and video is less than P1 in terms of the severity of impact when it fails. To accept this argument, the Group would have to go back and relassify 2.6 for consistency. ** Draft disposition [Working Group should review, but this may be what the group would consense on:] Reject the comment, on the reasoning: Point 1, undue burden: Some combination (as the Working Group wishes to include, exclude or balance) of: a) not that hard (SAMI e.g.) b) not pertinent (P1 vs. P2 definitions don't consider implementability per se.) Point 2, not really necessary: a) clarification: issue is ability to satisfy Checkpoint 2.6 when using a screen magnifier (as per CMN comment in issues list). b) keep at P1 because information in multimedia is commonly in the relationship between visual and sound track content. Reviewing video and captions at different times is not regarded as access to the information in this case. Note: The fineness of positioning in the user repositioning of the caption display is not really an issue raised by the commenter. It is not really a factor in the implementability of the function, as most screen postioning is done in pixel units today. So this subthread does not need to be carried forward into the disposition of the comment. It was just an over-reaction to one word in the comment which was in fact not the issue the commenter was raising. Al -- background quotes Summary of issue from the Issues List: Issue 271 (Proposed Recommendation): Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2 since arbitrary repositioning not a requirement. Name: Other comments (not formal AC Review) Source URL: [291]None Date: Sun Apr 9 12:30:49 2000 Category of issue: User-control of Style Type of issue: Checkpoints Resolution summary: Not resolved Resolution URL: Not resolved First working draft: No reference Comments: " This seems like Pri 2 instead of Pri 1 to me, because it is not reasonable to require the user to be able to move captions to any arbitrary location. Most media players don't support moving the captions to arbitrary locations, and I see lack of this feature as making things difficult but not impossible. " Checkpoint 2.6 summary from linear checklist: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/PR-UAAG10-20000310/uaag10-chklist.html> * [43]Checkpoint 2.6 Allow the user to specify that text transcripts, collated text transcripts, captions, and auditory descriptions be rendered at the same time as the associated auditory and visual tracks. Respect author-supplied synchronization cues during rendering. [44](Techniques for 2.6)
Received on Sunday, 30 April 2000 10:30:07 UTC