Re: UA comments


My comments below, preceded by "IJ:" presume the 
19 March 2001 draft of UAAG 1.0.

geoff freed wrote:
> 1.  Guideline 2.7:
> "Allow configuration to generate repair text when the user agent
> recognizes that the author has failed to provide conditional
> content that was required by the format specification. If the
> missing conditional content is included by URI reference, base
> the repair text on the URI reference and content type.
> Otherwise, base the repair text on element type
> information. [Priority 2]"
> GF:
> Even after reading the associated techniques document, I'm still
> not clear on how authors are going to handle this guideline. 

IJ: Which part of the checkpoint surprises you?
 a) How to recognize missing conditional content?
 b) How to do the repair?

In the 19 March 2001 version, we're very specific about (b). In fact,
too specific; we may revise the minimal requirement per this

As for (a), this information is supposed to come from

> The
> inclusion of more examples-- perhaps some sample code, as is done
> in WCAG 1.0 techniques-- would be helpful. 

IJ: Ok.

> In general, are you
> talking about incorporating and/or implementing an SSB
> ( or next-generation Bobby type of thing?
> If so, it sounds like a giant request to make of UA
> manufacturers.

IJ: Could you please explain a little more why this seems like a big
> 2.  (from the glossary)  Auditory description
> "An auditory description is either a prerecorded human voice or a
> synthesized voice (recorded or generated dynamically) describing
> the key visual elements of a movie or other animation. The
> auditory description is synchronized with the audio track of the
> presentation, usually during natural pauses in the audio
> track. Auditory descriptions include information about actions,
> body language, graphics, and scene changes."
> GF:
> My only objection to this definition is the term itself.  "Audio
> description" has become the industry's generic term for extra
> tracks of descriptive narration.  It is used in Section 508; in
> SMIL 2.0, there's an element called systemAudioDesc, not
> systemAuditoryDesc, which is used to toggle descriptions on or
> off, if present.  Thus, in the interest of conformity and
> clarity, I think you're better off replacing "auditory
> description" with "audio description".

IJ: Since this is a "content term", we are using the term "auditory
description" as used in WCAG 1.0 [1]. I hesitate to stray too far
from WCAG 1.0. Perhaps it would be sufficient in UAAG 1.0 to say
something like "An auditory description (also called an "audio
description"...) .... 

What do you think?

Thanks again Geoff,

 - Ian


Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 15:48:52 UTC