RE: [Conformance] Proposals regarding content/ui labels,input de vice conformance, and conformance example

Comments below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:03 AM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: ij@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Conformance] Proposals regarding content/ui labels,input
> de vice conformance, and conformance example
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> Thank you for sending comments. I've snipped out a bunch
> and my new comments preceded by IJ:
> 
> Any reason you didn't send these to the list?
> 
EH: It was accidently sent before finishing and I neglected to notice that
it had not gone to the list.

>  _ Ian
> 
> > > ==========
> > > Proposal 2
> > > Conformance for pointing device input and voice input
> > > ==========
> > >
> > >    Because checkpoint 11.3 includes some requirements that are
> > >    specific to the keyboard and some that are not, I 
> propose to split
> > >    the checkpoint in two (so that conformance will be easier to
> > >    understand). This would give:
> > >
> > >      11.3a Allow the user to override any binding that is 
> part of the
> > >      user agent default input configuration. The user agent is not
> > >      required to allow the user to override standard 
> bindings for the
> > >      operating environment (e.g., for access to help). 
> [Priority 2]
> > >
> > >      11.3b Allow the user to override any binding in the default
> > >      keyboard configuration with a binding of a single key and
> > >      (possibly zero) modifier keys. Allow the user to 
> assign a single
> > >      key binding (with zero modifier keys) to at least a 
> majority of
> > >      the functionalities available in the default keyboard
> > >      configuration. [Priority 2]
> > >
> > EH: Issue 1: Proposal to split. It seems good. So 11.3a 
> would apply voice
> > and pointer input and 11.3b would not.
> 
> IJ: Yes.
>  
> > Issue 2: 11.3b has been changed sometime recently but it 
> seems not to make
> > sense. Specifically, the requirement to "Allow the user to 
> assign a single
> > key binding (with zero modifier keys) to at least a majority of the
> > functionalities available in the default keyboard configuration" may
> > sometimes be impossible to follow. Suppose there are 250 
> functionalities
> > available through the keyboard in the 'default keyboard 
> configuration'. This
> > checkpoint would require that there be a 'single key 
> binding (with zero
> > modifier keys) to at least a majority" i.e., 126, of the 
> functionalities.
> > Yet there are less than 126 such single key binding(s) 
> (with zero modifier
> > keys) available on the keyboard. It seems that this needs 
> to be fixed.
> 
> IJ: Yes. Al raised this as well in a recent message [1], and I missed
> it on the issues list. I will add it since two people have now
> commented. (The "two person rule" isn't really a rule, but it's
> at least an indicator that something needs attention.)
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0399.html
> 
> > > ==========
> > > Proposal 3
> > > Some edits to section 3.1 Conformance model
> > > ==========
> > >
> > > <NEW 3.1>
> > >
> > > The conformance model of this document has been designed to allow
> > > different types of user agents with different input and output
> > > capabilities to conform. At the same time, this flexible model
> > > includes requirements about conformance claims themselves so that:
> > >
> > >  a) people reading claims can determine whether a conforming user
> > >  agent is likely to meet their accessibility needs, and
> > >
> > >  b) people can compare claims about disparate user agents with
> > >  relative ease. Note: The checklist [UAAG10-CHECKLIST] may be
> > >  used when evaluating a user agent for conformance.
> > >
> > > The conformance model works as follows:
> > >
> > >  - A user agent conforms to this document by satisfying a set of
> > >  requirements. Conformance requirements *only* come from the
> > >  checkpoint statements. Each checkpoint statement includes one or
> > >  more requirements.
> > 
> > EH: Old:
> > >
> > >  - Different user agents may conform to different sets of
> > >  checkpoints.  The formula below explains how to calculate a set
> > >  of requirements that must be satisfied for conformance.
> > >
> > 
> > EH: New:
> > 
> > >  - Different user agents may conform to different sets of
> > >  checkpoints.  The formula below explains how to determine a set
> > >  of requirements that must be satisfied for conformance.
> > 
> > IJ:
> > 
> > >  - Conformance claims must indicate how the set of requirements
> > >  chosen for the claim differs from the "default" set. Please note
> > >  that this document includes both conformance requirements and
> > >  conformance claim requirements.
> > 
> > EH: Good.
> > 
> > IJ:
> > 
> > >
> > > The "default" set of requirements for conformance consists of all
> > > the requirements of all of the checkpoints. A user agent
> > > "conforms unconditionally" to this document if it satisfies all
> > > of the requirements of all of the checkpoints.
> > >
> > > A user agent "conforms conditionally" if it satisfies any set of
> > > requirements that results from carrying out all of the following
> > > steps:
> > >
> > >  1) Choose a conformance level. Each conformance level
> > >  corresponds to a set of checkpoints (and thus a set of
> > >  requirements).
> > 
> > EH: Good.
> > 
> > IJ:
> > 
> > >
> > >  2) Remove the requirements associated with any unsupported
> > >  content type labels. In order to conform conditionally, a user
> > >  agent must satisfy the requirements of at least one content type
> > >  label.
> > >
> > >  3) Remove the requirements of any checkpoints or parts of
> > >  checkpoints that do not apply.
> > >
> > > Note: In the default set of requirements, the only input device
> > > requirements relate to keyboard input.  It is also possible to
> > > claim conformance for pointing device input and voice input; see
> > > the section on input modality labels.
> > 
> > EH: Good.
> > 
> > >
> > > EXAMPLE
> > >
> > > Consider a user agent with these capabilities:
> > >
> > >  * it supports keyboard and pointing device input;
> > 
> > EH: Old:
> > 
> > >  * it renders text (in color) and several formats for
> > >    images, audio, and animations;
> > 
> > EH: New
> > >  * it renders text (in color) and several formats each for
> > >    images, audio, and animations; [CHECK WORD PLACEMENT]
> > 
> > IJ:
> > 
> > >  * it hands of video to a plug-in;
> > >  * it doesn't support speech output.
> > >
> > > Step 1) Choose a conformance level. The claimant wishes to
> > > conform at level Double-A.  The resulting set of requirements
> > > consists of all of the requirements of all the priority 1 and 2
> > > checkpoints.
> > >
> > > Step 2) Remove requirements related to content type labels.
> > > The claimant wishes to claim conformance for the user
> > > agent's support of text, images, audio, and video, but no other
> > > animation formats.
> > 
> > EH: It is a bit jarring to see video as an animation 
> format, perhaps a link
> > to glossary of other explanation is warranted.
> > 
> > IJ:
> > Since video is supported through a plug-in,
> > > the plug-in must be in the conformance claim. The following
> > > content type labels are therefore relevant: VisualText,
> > > ColorText, Image, Animation, Video, and Audio. This means that:
> > >
> > >  * the claimant must remove the set of requirements associated
> > >    with the Speech content type label.
> > >
> > >  * the claimant must satisfy the requirements associated with
> > >    the other content type labels.
> > >
> > > Step 3) Remove requirements that do not apply. Consider
> > > checkpoint 4.4, for example, which is associated with both the
> > > Audio and Animation content type labels:
> > 
> > EH: On the topic of recognition, this "example" is one of 
> several possible.
> > One can make the case that in the current environments, 
> checkpoint 2.5 ("")
> > does not apply.

EH: I was not quite finished with the above comment when I accidently sent
it. Please just delete the comment.
> 
> IJ: What do you mean by "current environments"?
> 
> > IJ:
> > >
> > >  4.4 Allow the user to slow the presentation rate of audio and
> > >  animations (including video and animated images). For a visual
> > >  track, provide at least one setting between 40% and 60% of the
> > >  original speed. For a prerecorded audio track including 
> audio-only
> > >  presentations, provide at least one setting between 75% 
> and 80% of
> > >  the original speed. When the user agent allows the user 
> to slow the
> > >  visual track of a synchronized multimedia presentation to between
> > >  100% and 80% of its original speed, synchronize the visual and
> > >  audio tracks. Below 80%, the user agent is not required to render
> > >  the audio track. The user agent is not required to satisfy this
> > >  checkpoint for audio and animations whose recognized role is to
> > >  create a purely stylistic effect. [Priority 1]
> > >
> > > Suppose that:
> > >
> > >  a) The claimant wishes to claim support for two audio formats;
> > >  b) The claimant wishes to claim support for one video format;
> > >  c) The claimant does not wish to claim support for two
> > >     animation formats (since the user agent doesn't
> > >     satisfy the requirements of 4.4 for those implemented 
> formats);
> > 
> > EH: This list seems to contradict the earlier implication 
> that video formats
> > would be a "kind of" animation format....
> 
> IJ: Not contradict: video format here is used as a more specific
> class than animation format.
>  
EH: OK

> > IJ:
> > 
> > >  d) The claimant does not wish to claim support for synchronized
> > >     multimedia (since the user agent doesn't
> > >     implement any synchronized multimedia formats).
> > >
> > > The resulting requirements from this checkpoint would be:
> > >
> > >  a) For the audio formats:
> > >     Allow the user to slow the presentation rate of audio.  For a
> > >     prerecorded audio track including audio-only presentations,
> > >     provide at least one setting between 75% and 80% of 
> the original
> > >     speed.
> > >
> > >  b) For the video format:
> > >     Allow the user to slow the presentation rate of video. For a
> > >     visual track, provide at least one setting between 
> 40% and 60% of
> > >     the original speed.
> > >
> > >  c) Limitation of scope for any format:
> > >     The user agent is not required to satisfy this checkpoint for
> > >     audio and animations whose recognized role is to 
> create a purely
> > >     stylistic effect.
> > >
> > > The following requirements do not apply:
> > >
> > >  a) When the user agent allows the user to slow the 
> visual track of a
> > >     synchronized multimedia presentation to between 100% and
> > > 80% of its
> > >     original speed, synchronize the visual and audio tracks.
> > > Below 80%,
> > >     the user agent is not required to render the audio track.
> > >
> > >     The relevant applicability provision is provision three
> > 
> > EH: "of section 3.x:"
> > 
> > IJ:
> > >     control of a content property that the subject cannot
> > >     recognize. In this case, no format implemented by the user
> > >     agent supports synchronized multimedia.
> > >
> > > Step 4) Construct a well-formed conformance claim. For this
> > > example (in addition to other required information), the 
> claim must
> > > include the following information:
> > >
> > >  a) Conformance level Double-A
> > >  b) Information about the subject, in this case the combination
> > >     of a multimedia user agent and a plug-in for rendering video.
> > >  c) Content type labels: "This user agent does not support
> > >     the requirements of the Speech content type label. This
> > >     user agent supports the requirements of the Animation
> > >     content type label for the format X, but does not for the
> > >     formats Y and Z."
> > 
> > EH: It seems necessary to do as you have done -- to 
> indicate which formats
> > are _implemented but for which no support is claimed_ (Y 
> and Z) as well as
> > for which ones support is claimed (X). Should this be made any more
> > explicit?
> 
> IJ: I agree, I think it should be. I think that the well-formed
> claim needs to have this level of detail. I think this is an
> editorial change (i.e,. just say that depending on the level of
> detail of the claim, the level of detail of the information provided
> about applicability, etc. will vary.)
>  
> > IJ:
> > 
> > >  d) Requirements that do not apply: "The synchronized multimedia
> > >     requirements of checkpoint 4.4 do not apply because the user
> > >     agent does not implement any formats that support
> > >     synchronized multimedia.
> > >
> > > Note: Since the user agent does not meet the requirements of the
> > > Pointer and Voice input modality labels, the claim does not
> > > include them.
> > > </NEW 3.1>
> > >
> > > Comment:
> > >
> > > a) I refer to "requirements" rather than "checkpoints" throughout
> > > this section since a single checkpoint may include more than one
> > > requirement. I need to make sure that section 3 uses the term
> > > "requirement" rather than "checkpoint" in a uniform manner.
> > >
> > > Your comments welcome,
> > >
> > >  - Ian
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > > Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> > > Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> > >
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 11:28:22 UTC