Re: Issue 516: Checkpoint 2.4: Checkpoint doesn't make sense for SMIL 2.0

Hmm. It would be nice to use this to update the SMIL accessibiltiy note for a
version 2 - use declarative animation (SMIL) rather than Javascript for this,
becuase it can be more easily controlled. But there are other things it would
be nice to update in that note too, and I don't think anyone has said they
have any time to work on it yet. Sigh. Volunteers anyone?


On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Al Gilman wrote:

  At 01:53 PM 2001-07-09 , Jon Gunderson wrote:
  >I believe we have already talked about this issue.  If the timing for the
  >input is not recognizable as a part of markup, then the user agent does not
  >have to provide the service.  It may indicate a potential accessibility
  >problem in the SMIL 2.0 specification, if this type of user input
  >interaction cannot be identified by the user agent through the author
  >supplied markup.
  >QUESTION: Does anyone know if timed input behavior can be defined in SMIL
  >2.0 through markup alone, or would there need to be some scripting
  >involved?  The difference I see in the use of scripting, is that the author
  >is essentially creating their own user interface.


  As regards that last question, yes.

  See, for example


  Here the sensitive region is a volume swept out by a display region X a time
  range.  The time range of a smil:area is its own time container in the
  hierarchy of time containers.  And this is all defined in the SMIL, there
  is no
  scripting involved.

Charles McCathieNevile  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 23:49:42 UTC