Re: Responses to Phill Jenkins issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

I agree with the disposition and comments, and that we disagree on #368:
Checkpoint 12.1:  Ensure that at least one version of the product
documentation conforms to at least Level Double-A of the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]

 Again my proposal, consistent with ATAG 1.0, is that the User Agent
documentation should at least conform to WCAG, in a relative priority
scheme. Priority 1 to do priority 1, Priority 2 to do priority 2, etc.;
     1. to keep UAAG consistent with other recommendations that reference
WCAG,
     2. to encourage harmonization,
     3. to improve the ability to change or improve the WCAG priorities
without having to change the priorities in UAAG,
     4. and the WG provided no data to support the change in priorities,
and if it can, then it should be submitted and considered in the WCAG 2.0
effort.

Would the WG please carry forward this objections to the Director as the
document advances.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins,  (512) 838-4517
IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Rd,  Austin TX  78758    http://www.ibm.com/able


Hi Phill,

Just a heads-up: the 23 March 2001 draft is the latest UAAG 1.0
draft [1].

Thank you,

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010323/


Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
> Phill,
>
> Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your last call
> issues (360-370).

[snip]

Phill,

In my previous email I did not include a deadline:

Please indicate before 27 March 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. If you do
not think you respond before 27 March, please let me know.  The
Director will appreciate a response whether you agree with the
disposition of comments or not.

Thank you,

 - Ian




Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>@w3.org on 03/16/2001 05:49:04 PM

Sent by:  ian@w3.org


To:   Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject:  Responses to Phill Jenkins issues raised during second last call
      of UAAG  1.0



Phill,

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your last call
issues (360-370).

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

[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:
===============================================

---------------------
#364: Checkpoint 3.5: Add plug-ins, clarify that on a resource-level
(not element-level)

  Comment: The Working Group did not add plug-ins since plug-ins
  are not "forced" on the user by authors; the user must install them.
  Nonetheless, checkpoint 3.4 has been generalized to "executable
  content".

   "3.4 Allow configuration not to execute any executable content
   (e.g., scripts and applets). In this configuration, provide an
   option to alert the user when executable content is available (but
   has not been executed)."

---------------------
#368: Checkpoint 10.1: Use relative priority

  Comment: As you know from our face-to-face meeting in
  Cambridge [6], there is not agreement in the Working Group
  about the priority of this checkpoint (some participants
  demand Triple-A WCAG 1.0 conformance, others Single-A or
  relative priority scheme). Thus, for the moment, the Chair
  has resolved to leave the requirement as is: Double-A
  WCAG 1.0 conformance for checkpoint 12.1.

  [6] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes




===============================================
The UAWG agreed with you, but please confirm:
===============================================

---------------------
#367: Checkpoint 1.2: Clarification required for cross-platform
implementations, published APIs, more

  Comment: Checkpoint 1.2 has been subsumed by checkpoint 6.6,
  which I believe is in the spirit of your suggestion:

   "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."

--------------------
#370: Checkpoint 7.6: Clarification required on how important elements
identified

  Comment: Checkpoint 9.9 has been clarified. The Note now reads:

    "Note: This specification intentionally does not identify which
    "important elements" must be navigable as this will vary according
    to markup language. What constitutes "efficient navigation" may
    depend on a number of factors as well, including the "shape" of
    content (e.g., serial navigation of long lists is not efficient)
    and desired granularity (e.g., among tables, then among the cells
    of a given table). Refer to the Techniques document [UAAG10-TECHS]
    for information about identifying and navigating important
    elements."

===============================================
The UAWG adopted your suggestion:
===============================================

---------------------
#360: Checkpoint 2.2: What if time interval controlled by server? What
about security issues?

  Comment: Checkpoint 2.4 now states in the Note:

   "Note: In this configuration, the user agent may have to pause the
   presentation more than once, depending on the number of times input
   is requested. In SMIL 1.0 [SMIL], for example, the "begin", "end",
   and "dur" attributes synchronize presentation components. The user
   may explicitly complete input in many different ways (e.g., by
   following a link that replaces the current time-sensitive resource
   with a different resource). This checkpoint does not apply when the
   user agent cannot recognize the time interval in the presentation
   format, or when the user agent cannot control the timing (e.g.,
   because it is controlled by the server)."

---------------------
#361: Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long / consider
ease-of-use

  Comment: With you present at the WG's face-to-face meeting in
  Cambridge [5], we split this checkpoint into three checkpoints:
  4.13, 4.14, and 4.15.

  [5] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes#speech

---------------------
#365: Checkpoint 4.12: Re-evaluate priority of increase/decrease and
allow other techniques (also, other issues)

  Comment: These have been removed from checkpoint 4.11, which now
  reads:

  "4.11 Allow configuration and control of the synthesized speech
  playback rate, according to the full range offered by the speech
  synthesizer.
      Note: The range of playback rates offered by the speech
      synthesizer may depend on the natural language."

---------------------
#366: Editorial: Please put direct links to WAI resources.

  Comment: Done.

===============================================
The UAWG answered the following questions:
===============================================

--------------------
#362: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarifications required (e.g., is this an
accessibility issue?)

  Comment:
    * The Working Group clarified the text of what is now checkpoint
2.10.
    * The accessibility issue is that users who must access content
      serially are spared (hence P3) the hassle of viewing content
      that is rendered as "garbage" due to lack of support for the
      natural language in question.

--------------------
#363: Checkpoint 3.3: What if scripts used for blinking? (also, other
issues)

  Comment: As for other requirements in the document, if blinking
  cannot be detected from the way the author has encoded information,
  the checkpoint does not apply. Checkpoint 3.3 now reads:

  "3.3 Allow configuration to render animated or blinking text as
   motionless, unblinking text. [Priority 1]

     Note: This checkpoint does not apply for blinking and animation
     effects that are caused by mechanisms that the user agent cannot
     recognize. This checkpoint requires configuration because
     blinking effects may be disorienting to some users but useful to
     others, for example users who are deaf or hard of
     hearing."

--------------------
#369: Checkpoint 7.4: Conformance possible if you can't get to
elements with event handlers?

  Comment: At the Cambridge face-to-face meeting [6], the Working
  Group reiterated the requirement that users be able to
  trigger event handlers explicitly associated with an element
  in a device-independent manner. Please refer to checkpoints
  9.1 through 9.7 in the 9 March 2001 draft. Note, however, that
  at its 15 March teleconference [7], the Working Group decided to
  lower the priority of checkpoint 9.3 to P2.

  [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0427


--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 16:50:14 UTC