- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:39:51 -0500
- To: greglo@microsoft.com
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Greg,
Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your last
call issues (389-442, refer to your email [0]). This is a long
email, but then again, so was yours <wink>.
The complete second last call issues list [1] is available
online. The results of the UAWG's resolutions have been
incorporated into the 9 March 2001 draft of the document [2].
NOTE: The issue titles relate to the 23 October 2000 last call
draft [4]. In my comments below, checkpoint numbers, etc. have
been updated to correspond to the 9 March 2001 draft.
Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the UAWG's
resolutions, whether you wish the WG to carry forward
any objections to the Director as the document advances, or
whether you require further clarification or comment.
Refer to section 5.5.2 of the 8 February 2001 W3C Process
Document [3] for information about requirements to formally
address issues prior to advancing to last call.
On behalf of the UAWG, thank you for your review and
comments,
- Ian
P.S. The Working Group anticipates advancing to (its third)
last call in just a few weeks. We are currently reviewing and
editing the document after changes due to second last call issues.
[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310
[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/
[3]
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/
===============================================
The UAWG disagreed with you on the following:
===============================================
----------------
#389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective
fashion
Comment: We've done a lot to improve the document in terms of
conformance since the last call draft, including the following:
a) Introduction of content type labels and input modality
labels to allow greater flexibility in conformance.
b) Clarifying checkpoints (notably those of Guideline 1).
However, as you recall from our 25 January 2001 discussion [4]
you maintained your concern that the Guidelines are not
technology-specific, making it difficult to objectively measure
conformance. We will take these comments to the Director, but
for now we have left the Guidelines (and conformance scheme)
technology-independent, as was the case for WCAG 1.0 and ATAG 1.0.
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137.html
---------------
#396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values
Comment: The Working Group resolved not to include general
resizing requirements in UAAG 1.0 (though there are
requirements for resizing text). This is now clearly listed as
one of the limitations of UAAG 1.0 (refer to section 1.3 of
the document). Some specifications (e.g., SVG) will allow for
resizing as part of conformance to those specifications.
---------------
#399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for [positioning
of transcripts and captions?]
Comment: The Quicktime player allows positioning (but not when
captions are streamed; only when they are downloaded and
played). The RealPlayer does not (yet) support caption positioning
for SMIL, but the SMIL specification itself allows this. We are
working on getting more implementation experience/commitments.
In the meantime, the Working Group resolved to maintain this as
a P1 requirement.
---------------
#406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3
Comment: The Working Group felt that the orientation problems
were significant enough that this checkpoint (now 5.1) should
remain a priority 2 checkpoint.
---------------
#414: Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements
Comment: There has been no increase in the minimal navigation
requirements for what is now checkpoint 9.2:
"9.2 Allow the user to move the content focus to any enabled
element in the viewport. If the author has not specified a
navigation order, allow at least forward sequential
navigation to each element, in document order. The user agent
may also include disabled elements in the navigation order."
One reason that there has not been an increase is that there
are other navigation requirements in the document (search,
structured navigation). Thus, this checkpoint alone does not
guarantee simple access (but it does meet the definition of a
P1 checkpoint), but we anticipate that access will be possible
by the sum of the navigation requirements.
Please feel free to suggest alternative minimal requirements.
---------------
#418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text.
Comment: The Working Group felt that any rendered content
should be part of the search, but undrendered content should
not since this would be disorienting to the user. Instead, other
requirements of the document require access to all content, and
when rendered, that content is subject to the search
requirement.
---------------
<RELATED>
#429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying
preferences.
#431: New requirement: conforming UA must make available
preferences through API
<RELATED>
Comment: The Working Group did not add these requirements
today for two reasons:
- There is no known interoperable API for exchanging user
preferences. The Working Group intends to pursue this (e.g.,
with the DOM WG) after UAAG 1.0.
- The benefit to accessibility has not been studied.
---------------
#430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images
Comment: There are several checkpoints related to animations
in UAAG 1.0: 3.2, 3.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7, 4.8. The Working
Group felt that the requirement of checkpoint 3.2 was about
turning off rendering of a block of content that might be
be visually disorienting, but not because of the motion; just
because of the quantity of information. Thus, checkpoint
3.2 has been limited to "video and animated images", while
checkpoints 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8 (which are about motion) have
been broadened to include all classes of animations, as you
suggested. Furthermore, a definition of "animation" has been
added to the document to clarify what is expected.
---------------
#432: Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2
Comment: The Working Group disagrees that blinking images
and animated images are the same: blinking is an on/off effect.
There is no requirement to slow down this blinking effect (only
to stop it). There are requirements to slow down animation effects,
so that users can understand the changes to content.
---------------
#440: Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques?
Comment: The Working Group believes that the details of the
required search functionality (now checkpoint 9.8) are
minimal requirements, and thus belong in the checkpoint.
---------------
#441: New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the
resource being at the same or a different domain.
Comment: This was not added. However, there is a requirement
to provide information about whether the link is internal
to the same resource.
===============================================
The UAWG agreed with you, but please confirm:
===============================================
---------------
#393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other
programmatic means.
Comment: This requirement was folded into a new checkpoint:
"6.6 Implement standard accessibility APIs (e.g., of the
operating environment). Where these APIs do not enable the
user agent to satisfy the requirements of this document, use
the standard input and output APIs of the operating
environment." [Priority 1]
Thus, while the priority of implementing standard i/o APIs was
not changed to Priority 1, the Working Group agreed that it was
more important to first use available accessibility APIs (which
are higher level than the i/o APIs) and to only use the i/o APIs
in failure mode.
---------------
#397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to
define "system colors"
Comment: The express "system colors" has been replaced globally
by "range of colors supported by the operating environment."
---------------
#403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of
author-specified speeds.
Comment: We did not add this requirement (for user control of
author-supplied rate changes) for the following reasons:
1) If speech engine allows user override, that's the speech
engine's functionality, not the UA's.
2) We don't require content transformations to strip out
author-supplied rate changes before sending to the speech
engine.
---------------
#415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4)
Comment: There have been a number of changes related to the
term "active element". In fact, the term has been deleted
from the document and replaced with other terms (with clearer
entries in the glossary):
* Interactive element
* Enabled element.
Furthermore, the definition of "enabled element" states:
"For the requirements of this document, user selection does
not constitute user interaction with enabled elements."
===============================================
The UAWG believes the comment has been addressed due
to other changes in the document or because the comment required
clarification but no substantial change to the document:
===============================================
---------------
#391: Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to
reimplement input methods.
Comment: This clarification is no longer required because of the
more straightforward input device requirements: if you claim
conformance for the pointing device, you must indeed allow for
character input (for example) through the pointing device (this
is part of "full operation through the pointing
device). Furthermore, this checkpoint has been deleted in the 9
March draft.
---------------
#392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad
Comment: This is a conformance issue: a claim of conformance
may include any number of software components. Therefore, a
user agent alone might not satisfy one of the requirements, but
the user agent in conjunction with another piece of software
(e.g., an on-screen keyboard that comes with the OS) might.
There is no longer a notion of "what is the responsibility of
the user agent, the operating system, and third-party
accessibility aids"; there are simply requirements that must
be met, by whatever means the claimant has available.
---------------
#400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to
play simultaneously?
Comment: The answer is that the requirement for independent
volume control is not necessary when sources of audio may be
played one after the other. In that case, global control
suffices (another checkpoint). Thus, this is an expression of
the minimal functional requirement. We added a Note to
checkpoint 4.10:
"Note: Sounds that play at different times are distinguishable
and therefore independent control of their volumes is not part
of this checkpoint (volume control per checkpoint 4.9
suffices). The user agent may satisfy this checkpoint by
allowing the user to control independently the volumes of all
distinct audio sources. The user control required by this
checkpoint includes the ability to override author-specified
volumes for the relevant sources of audio."
---------------
<RELATED>
#401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs [into
separate checkpoints.]
#402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for
one wpm case)
</RELATED>
Comment: The minimal requirements have been removed from the
checkpoint as a result of internationalization review. The
checkpoint now reads:
"4.11 Allow configuration and control of the synthesized
speech playback rate, according to the full range offered by
the speech synthesizer."
---------------
#416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard?
Comment: This is covered by the checkpoint 1.1. requirement to
be able to operate the user agent fully with the keyboard.
---------------
#426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this
checkpoint
Comment: This is now checkpoint 11.4. In both the 9 March 2001
draft and the 23 October draft, this checkpoint does not make
any requirements about the complexity of bindings because those
requirements are addressed by other checkpoints. Thus, no
change was required.
---------------
#427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format
Comment: The UAAG 1.0 requirement of checkpoint 12.1 is
that at least one version of the documentation conform to
WCAG 1.0. While WCAG 1.0 is heavily oriented towards HTML, it
does not require HTML only. The Working Group felt that WCAG 1.0
was the best document available today for explaining how to
create accessible content.
--------------
#428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect
accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4)
Comment: The Working Group did not add another requirement, but
instead:
* Linked what are now checkpoints 12.4 and 12.5 in the
techniques.
* Changed "promote accessibility" to "benefit accessibility"
in checkpoint 12.4 (for consistency with other checkpoints).
===============================================
The UAWG adopted your suggestion:
===============================================
---------------
#390: Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing
approach
Comment: The UAAG 1.0 has been rewritten so that:
a) Keyboard-only operation is always required;
b) It is possible to conform for pointing device only and
voice only operation. Any claim of conformance where that
is not the case must include a statement to that effect
(via input modality labels).
---------------
#395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional
Comment: The requirement now includes a configuration for
placeholders. Please refer to checkpoint 3.7 in the 9 March draft.
---------------
#398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not
recognized as style"
Comment: There were two changes to the document:
a) The following statement in checkpoint 4.4 et al. is
clearer:
"The user agent is not required to satisfy this checkpoint
for audio and animations whose recognized role is to create
a purely stylistic effect."
b) The Note of checkpoint 4.4 states:
"Note: Purely stylistic effects include background sounds,
decorative animated images, and effects caused by style
sheets. The style exception of this checkpoint is based on
the assumption that authors have satisfied the requirements
of the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]
not to convey information through style alone (e.g.,
through color alone or style sheets alone)."
---------------
<RELATED>
#404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big
performance hit, reflow.
#405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish
selection/focus
#419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement
</RELATED>
Comment: The font requirement has been removed. Refer to
the following checkpoints, which have all been harmonized
with respect to highlight requirements: 10.2, 10.3, 10.6, and
10.7.
---------------
#407: Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic
closing of viewports
Comment: This is now checkpoint 5.6 (Priority 3).
---------------
#408: Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not
force manual open.
Comment: This was considered editorial, and checkpoint 5.3
reflects the Working Group's agreement.
---------------
#410: Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20?
Comment: The Working Group agreed and deleted the redundant
sentence.
---------------
#411: Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface
with overlapping viewports
Comment: The document's definition of "graphical" includes
text-only, so your comment was agreed to. Furthermore, we
edited the checkpoint to be more specific about overlaps:
"5.2 For graphical user interfaces, allow configuration so
that the viewport with the current focus remains "on top" of
all other viewports with which it overlaps."
---------------
#412: Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and
second sentences.
Comment: Per your suggestion, the Working Group added "that
benefit accessibility" to what is now checkpoint 7.3.
---------------
#417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from
beginning without alert
Comment: What is now checkpoint 9.8 includes this requirement:
"If the search wraps back to the beginning of content, alert the
user prior to wrapping"
---------------
#420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for
confirmation when activating a fee link
Comment: (After some hesitation) this was added as checkpoint 5.6:
"5.5 Allow configuration so the user is prompted to confirm
any payment resulting from activation of a fee link."
---------------
#425: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4
Comment: To clarify as you suggested, the checkpoints were
combined into what is now
---------------
#433: Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is
"instantaneous"?
Comment: The Working Group does not require control when
T=0 in a redirect.
---------------
#434: Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to
override author-specified volumes
Comment: The Note of checkpoint 4.12 states:
"Note: The user control required by this checkpoint includes
the ability to override author-specified speech volume."
---------------
#437: Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2
Comment: The Working Group agreed to raise the priority to
P2 of what is now checkpoint 6.9.
---------------
#439: Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation
Comment: We added directional navigation to the techniques
document for what is now checkpoint 9.2.
===============================================
The UAWG answered the following questions:
===============================================
---------------
#394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through
a source view
Comment: The Working Group put substantial effort into
clarifying the requirements of Guideline 2. As a result of this
effort, the requirement for a source view (for text formats)
was "promoted" to a checkpoint-level requirement. The document
now requires:
* Rendering according to specification (checkpoint 2.1)
* Rendering conditional context in context (checkpoint 2.3)
* A text view for text formats [to ensure access when
all else fails]. (checkpoint 2.2)
For background information about the changes to Guideline 2,
please refer to this summary:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0249.html
---------------
#409: Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result?
Comment: The following Note has been added to checkpoint 5.3:
"If a viewport (e.g., a frame set) contains other viewports,
these requirements only apply to the outermost container
viewport."
---------------
#413: Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content?
Comment: Yes, this applies only to content. There has been
no change to the document because it was considered that
the label in the document "Checkpoints for content" was
sufficient, but given other changes to the document
subsequently, I think this requires an additional (editorial)
clarification to the checkpoint. (I will write a proposal
to the Working Group.)
---------------
#421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required.
Comment: We clarified the intent by deleting the first sentence
of the old checkpoint 8.6. The new checkpoint (about system
conventions) is checkpoint 7.1.
---------------
#422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active
element/focus + techniques
Comment: The new checkpoint 10.3 and techniques have
been clarified as you suggested.
---------------
#423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf
information presented.
Comment: Checkpoints 11.1 and 11.2 now state more clearly
the different requirements:
"11.1 Provide information to the user about current user
preferences for input configurations. [Priority 1]
Note: To satisfy this checkpoint, the user agent may make
available binding information in a centralized fashion
(e.g., a list of bindings) or a distributed fashion (e.g.,
by listing keyboard shortcuts in user interface menus).
"11.2 Provide a centralized view of the current
author-specified input configuration bindings. [Priority 2]"
---------------
#424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include
active elements that take mouse input?
Comment: Bindings accomplished through scripting are not part
of the requirements of this document. This is covered by our
"applicability" provision in general. Furthermore, the
following statement has been added to section 3.2 of the
document (as an example of when one would consider applicability):
"Some input device behavior may be controlled by scripts in a
manner that the user agent cannot recognize."
---------------
#435: Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well?
Comment: Content only. There has been no change to the
document. However, based on my comments for issue #413, I
think additional clarification may be required.
---------------
#436: Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples
Comment: This was considered editorial. Examples were added to
the Techniques document for what is now checkpoint 6.3.
---------------
#438: Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of
active elements sufficient?
Comment: This has been clarified because the checkpoints of
what is now Guideline 9 have been made much more specific
to the content focus (whatever input devices are used
to control the content focus). There are no requirements in
the document for direct navigation through a pointing device,
but if the user agent allows the user to move the focus with
the pointing device, the desired functionality is achieved.
---------------
#442: Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click
behavior?
Comment: Yes it does, but only if you are claiming conformance
for the pointing device.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 17:39:58 UTC