W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

Responses to Adobe issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:31:24 -0400
Message-ID: <3B446C2C.9B9DC543@w3.org>
To: jferraio@Adobe.COM, lguarino@Adobe.COM
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Loretta, Jon,

The User Agent Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) has almost
finished resolving the issues raised during the third last call
review of the 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0 [1]. 

This is the UAWG's formal response to the issues raised in a discussion
between Adobe and Ian Jacobs. These issues have been logged in the
Working Group's issues list [4].  The UAWG's resolutions have been
incorporated into the 22 June 2001 draft of the UAAG 1.0 [5]. The UAWG
will respond separately to the issues raised by the SVG Working Group.

Please indicate before 19 July whether you are satisfied with the
UAWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 19 July, please let me
know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolutions or not.

Below you will find:

 1) More information follows about the process we are following.
 2) A summary of the UAWG's responses to each of your issues.

Note: Where checkpoint numbers have changed, I indicate the mapping to
the 22 June 2001 draft.

Thank you,

 _ Ian

1) Process requirement to address last call issues

Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 8 February 2001 Process Document, in
order for the UAAG 1.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. There are currently two
objections that the UAWG will carry forward with the document in
a request to advance to Candidate Recommendation. Each concerns
the priority of checkpoint 12.1, one that the priority should be
lowered, the other that the priority should be raised. There are
additional supporters of each position.

  Phill Jenkins:
  Gregory Rosmaita:

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#RecsCR
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/groups.html#WGVotes
[4] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010622/

2) Issues you raised and responses

Issue 492: History mechanism and relation to plug-ins 

Issue summary: Suppose that a plug-in is used to render a particular
image format in a viewport "V". Who is responsible for maintaining the
history information (of focus, selection, and point of regard) when
the user takes focus from "V" and then gives it back to "V" later? Is
it the plug-in's responsibility? Or another module of the user agent
(in which case, what is the API used to send history information back
to the plug-in)?

Response: No change to the document; each viewport is expected (but
not required) to maintain its own history information.

Issue 493: 3.2/3.4: Limit animations to those "in a box" 

Issue summary: Do the requirements to turn off animations apply when
the animation is not confined to a rectangular region?

 - After discussion, the WG decided that the requirement to turn off
   animations should apply to all animations.
 - However, the inline placeholder requirement has been
   removed. Instead, the checkpoints of Guideline 3 have been harmonized
   with checkpoint 2.3, since the unrendered animations (or audio or
   images) are conditional content that is covered by checkpoint
 - In checkpoint 2.3, placeholders are just one option among several
   for providing access to conditional content.

Issue 494: Definition: "Explicit user request" slightly broken 

Response: Explicit user request has been defined as follows:

  "In this document, the term "explicit user request" refers to any
  user interaction with a control of the user agent user interface
  (not those in content), the focus, or selection. Control behavior
  should be documented."

The definition takes into account both of the following:

  - The user agent must "recognize" the request of the user.
  - The user must understand that the user is making a request.

Both of these are addressed by the fact that the requests pass through
the native user interface.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:34:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:31 UTC