W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Comments on the UAAG (28 Jan 00 Version)

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:28:00 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000306091237.00a8d770@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Eric Hansen <ehansen7@hotmail.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, ehansen@ets.org
Responses in JRG

At 03:55 PM 3/3/00 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> Eric Hansen wrote:
>> >
>> > Date: 18 February 2000
>> > To: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines List
>> > From: Eric Hansen
>> > Re: Comments on the User Agent Accessibility
>> > Guidelines 1.0 (28 January 2000 Candidate
>> > Recommendation)
>> >
>> > The document seems to read quite well.
>> >
>> > Following are a few comments. These comments
>> > attempt to reconcile and harmonize this document
>> > with the other documents (Web Content and Authoring
>> > Tools).
>I think that most of Eric's comments are editorial. He
>and I discussed ones that were not. Please refer to 
>proposals below.
>1) For Comments 1 and 2, I propose to change checkpoint
>   2.6 as suggested by Eric. Furthermore, I propose moving 
>   the Note into the checkpoint itself (and not mentioning
>   sychronized collated text transcripts since that will be
>   covered by this note).
>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
>presentations. Respect synchronization cues during

JRG: While there is currently no know markup to the User Agent working
group for an author to indicate collated text, it may be available in the
future.  The applicability clause allows developers to not have to
implement this feature until markup is available to recognize collated text.

>2) Comment #6: Clarify checkpoint 2.2.
>   I agree with Eric that as written in the CR,
>   Checkpoint 2.2 is not clear:
>  <OLD>
>"2.2 For presentations that require user
> interaction within a specified time interval, allow
>the user to configure the time interval (e.g., by
>allowing the user to pause and restart the
>presentation, to slow it down, etc.). [Priority 1]"
>  The checkpoint involves several pieces:
>      - Presentations
>      - User interaction within a time interval
>      - Configuration of the time interval
>      - The example of how the time interval is adjusted.
>  Checkpoints 4.5 and 4.6 require user agents to allow users
>  to slow, pause, stop, rewind, etc. audio, video, and
>  animations. If checkpoint 2.2 is only about the user being
>  able to control the rate of a presentation, 2.2 is subsumed
>  by them (since cases where user interaction is required is
>  a subset of all presentations). However, 2.2 talks about
>  configuration and this should be interpreted to mean that
>  the user configures the UA and *no longer has to pause or
>  slow the presentation by hand*. In this way, 2.2 differs from
>  4.5 and 4.6, and this difference needs to be clarified. Here
>  is the proposed clarification:
>  <PROPOSED 2.2>
>     For presentations that require user input within a 
>     specified time interval, allow the user to configure the
>     time interval (e.g., to extend it or to cause the user agent
>     to pause the presentation and await user input before proceeding).

JRG: The working group discussed this issue at the 10 February Telecon and
came up with the same conclusions as to the difference between 2.2 and
4.5/4.6.  I think the e.g. should be a little cleare by adding the word
"automatically" before the word pause.  This I think would help clarify
that the user agent is stopping the presentation based on recognizing
content that offers user input. 


>3) Comment #7: Fix the introduction for Guideline 2.
>   I think the following paragraph should be moved to 
>   Guideline 4 (and edited accordingly) since G4 talks
>   more about dynamic presentations and user interaction
>   than 2.2 (notably with the proposed change above that
>   2.2 is about configuration, not actions from the user).
>> > "Access to content requires more than mode
>> > redundancy. For dynamic presentations such as
>> > synchronized multimedia presentations created with
>> > SMIL 1.0 [SMIL], users with cognitive, hearing,
>> > visual, and physical disabilities may not be able
>> > to interact with a presentation within the time
>> > delays assumed by the author. To make the
>> > presentation accessible to these users, user agents
>> > rendering synchronized presentations must either
>> > provide access to content in a time-independent
>> > manner or allow users to configure the playback
>> > rate of the presentation."

JRG: I think this is a good move.

>4) I also think we should add Eric's proposed definitions for
>   collated text transcript, transcript, audio (to distinguish
>   audio presentation from audio track from sounds).

JRG: Yes.  I think though that we should have a statement in the techniques
document saying that developers should check the markup that they support
to see which alternative equivalents they need to support.  For developers
creating prorietary markup that they should support accessibility features
in their markup.

> - Ian
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814 or 212 532-4767
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 10:30:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:25 UTC