- From: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
- Date: 08 May 2000 10:56:23 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Here's a summary of my thoughts on this issue, which I tried to send before the telecon Thursday. Virus-related email trouble made it difficult for me to post until today. I think I largely agree with Al's revisted comment [1] but will give my full reasoning here since comment was specifically requested. (Please note that I am behind on list traffic after a vacation last week and may have missed other relevant comments.) Geoff Freed and I discussed this at length and we think that while configurable (list of choices) positioning of captions is OK, in the end users are better off with arbitrary positioning, especially given that the major layout languages allow it to authors. (Case 1 in the analysis in the 25 April telecon [2].) As mentioned in the telecon, when the author fuses the information the UA can't reposition it. (Case 2) We aren't aware of any multimedia authoring languages/tools that do not allow authors to control positioning, so Case 3 seems less crucial to us. As discussed in the telecon, the issue is not always ensuring that content is not obscured; sometimes the user wants to choose to obscure some content in order to be able to view several things within a limited visual field. So I am uncomfortable with Ian's proposal that focuses on obfuscation [3]. It includes a note saying overlapping on user choice is OK, so maybe that takes care of my concern, but the main language of the checkpoint will probably lead UA developers to focus solely on making sure there is no obscuring. As for the priority (and here is the tricky point, that Rich specifically suggested I comment on) it comes down to the needs of users with a specific combinations of disabilities. We can indeed imagine a user (hearing impaired, some constraint on visual field, needs magnification) who would likely find it impossible to use the content of a video if they couldn't position the captions just where they wanted. For them this is Priority 1. Use may also be impossible if a presentation requires users to, for example, watch a video while answering some questions about it. For some users, being able to customize the position of the video, captions, and questions will make it possible to carry out the task. For that reason, I endorse a priority of 1 for this checkpoint. Also, do we need to clarify the language of the checkpoint so that rather than requiring "configuring" the positioning we require that the user be able to arbitrarily position the elements. Madeleine [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0244.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0196.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0135.html
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 10:57:16 UTC