Re: Responses to RealNetworks issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the detailed responses.  Unfortunately, we've run out of 
bandwidth to respond to the responses.  I'm glad we were able to influence 
some decisions, and I think we may just need to agree to disagree for now 
on the others.

Rob

At 12:45 PM 7/5/01 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Rob,
>
>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 you raised on behalf
>of RealNetworks, which have been logged in the Working Group's issues
>list [4].  Some of these issues were raised in a discussion with Ian
>Jacobs, others were part of a formal review.  The UAWG's resolutions
>and other editorial suggestions have been incorporated into the 22
>June 2001 draft of the UAAG 1.0 [5].
>
>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
>response:
>
>   "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:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0528
>
>   Gregory Rosmaita:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0553
>
>[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
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Raised during discussions between RealNetworks and Ian
>------------------------------------------------------
>Summary of issues:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 495: 2.4, 3.5, 4.4: Don't require buffering of lost packets
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#495
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution: The UAWG agrees with the reviewer: user agents are not
>required to buffer "lost packets" due to a user-initiated pause.  We
>will clarify in the document that for some live presentations, there
>may be information loss when pause happens for 2.4, 3.5, and 4.4.
>
>Note, however, that for checkpoint 3.3 (toggle blinking/animated
>text), that the user agent must not drop packets.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 496: 2.4: How useful in heavily interactive presentations?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#496
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Real Networks: "In many situations, dynamic content may be accompanied
>by banner advertisements, for instance. Imagine a presentation where
>the top of the presentation is occupied by a series of eighty banner
>ads, one after the other, each lasting 30 seconds. It would seem that
>pausing the presentation every thirty seconds to allow for user input
>(for ads or some other content) would not make for a very positive
>user experience. In short, dynamic content with frequent and numerous
>opportunities for interaction would not be very usable if paused so
>frequently. Consider also a stock ticker, where each symbol is a link
>to that company's home page (or data about that company). How would
>2.4 work in this case?"
>
>Resolution: No change to the document. The UAWG agrees for that some
>presentations, this functionality may not be useful. However, it is
>expected to be useful for many types of presentations. In the case of
>a stock ticker, for example, the author should provide alternative
>static access to all of the stock symbols.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 497:  2.4: What is scope; what must the user agent pause?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#497
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Issue summary: Does the requirement to pause presentations apply to
>all content, even if not synchronized?
>
>Resolution: No change to the document.  Checkpoint 2.6 covers the case
>of synchronized content: if one piece of content is paused, the rest
>must be as well (to respect synchronization). For non-synchronized
>content, the user agent might pause everything or might not pause
>unrelated content. The UAWG presumes that both streams will be
>available at another time, and if not, the user must be able to choose
>which is preferred.
>
>The following recommendation appears in the note after 2.4:
>
>   "Per checkpoint 2.6, when the user pauses one piece of a
>   synchronized presentation, the user agent should pause all of the
>   pieces (whether they are rendered in the same or different
>   viewports)."
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 498: 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, 8.2: Conformance for some but not all formats
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#498
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Issue summary: It was not clear in the last call draft whether a UA
>had to satisfy the requirements of UAAG 1.0 for every format
>implemented, or whether some formats could be used to satisfy the
>requirements and others be outside of a conformance claim for the same
>user agent.
>
>
>Resolved:
>
>   - The user agent is not required to conform for *all* formats.
>
>   - A claim should include information about which formats are
>     implemented for the purposes of conformance.
>
>   - The claim should include information about which APIs are
>     implemented for the purposes of conformance.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 499: 3.3: Relationship between streaming text and animated text
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#499
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolved:
>
>  - Animation and streaming are independent. Streaming is a content
>  delivery technique while animation is a content presentation
>  technique.
>
>  - UAAG 1.0 requires that animated content be available in
>    non-animated form. This would include streaming content.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 500:  4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints,
>how does override work? Can captions be positioned in a
>separate viewport?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#500
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolved: This checkpoint may be satisfied by putting captions in a
>separate viewport with some constraints. Checkpoint 4.6 has been
>modified in the 22 June draft to read:
>
>  <BLOCKQUOTE>
>   1.For graphical viewports, allow the user to position captions with
>   respect to synchronized visual tracks as follows: if the user agent
>   satisfies this checkpoint by using a markup language or style sheet
>   language to provide configuration or control, then the user agent
>   must allow the user to choose from among at least the range of
>   positions enabled by the format otherwise the user agent must allow
>   both non-overlapping and overlapping positions (e.g., by rendering
>   captions in a separate viewport that may be positioned on top of the
>   visual track).
>
>   2.In either case, the user agent must allow the user to override the
>   author's specified position.
>
>   3.The user agent is not required to change the layout of other
>   content (i.e., reflow) after the user has changed the position of
>   captions.
>
>   4.The user agent is not required to make the captions background
>   transparent when those captions are rendered above a related video
>   track.
>   </BLOCKQUOTE>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 501: 10.9: What is scope of position indicator?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#501
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>RealNetworks comment: Imagine a presentation with 80 audio clips in a
>row (this could be done in SMIL with a element). Should the position
>indicator account for all 80? Or each one, one at a time? I wouldn't
>want the user agent to have to go out to the Web to get duration
>information about all 80 clips in advance in order to build a
>proportional position indicator. Instead, I think it would be
>reasonable to display in that case something like "First of 80 clips,
>20% of first clip".
>
>Resolution:
>  - UAAG 1.0 will not require any particular granularity for
>    position indication.
>
>  - The technique suggested by RealNetworks has been added
>    to the document.
>
>---------------------------
>Raised during formal review
>---------------------------
>RealNetworks review comments:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 506: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different
>components control different content?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#506
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Issue summary: How does a global configuration requirement work when
>different modules render and provide control over different types of
>content?
>
>Resolution:
>
>  - The definition of "global configuration" now reads:
>
>    "A global configuration is one that applies across elements of the
>    same Web resource, as well as across Web resources. A global
>    configuration may be implemented by more than one setting (e.g.,
>    per component of the user agent). For instance, when a user agent
>    consists of a browser that renders HTML and a plug-in that renders
>    SVG, to satisfy the global configuration requirements of this
>    document, the browser may provide one setting and the plug-in
>    another."
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 507: 4.3: If the format does not provide a way to
>specify a global background color, does the checkpoint
>apply if user agent can specify background color
>on a region-by-region basis?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#507
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution: Checkpoint 4.3 applies to all regions (same for 4.2,
>4.2). The format may not allow background to be set at a global level,
>but it doesn't matter to the user: the background color has to be
>"color X" everywhere. Thus, the user agent may have to satisfy this
>requirement by setting the background color on all regions.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 508:  4.5: Require clarification - is fast playback required,
>or just the ability to jump forward in time?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#508
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution:
>
>  - Fast playback is not required. The requirement is for the
>    ability to jump forward in time (either serially or discretely).
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 509: 6.1, 6.2: P1 to provide access to content (e.g., in
>raw form), DOM either P2 or alternative
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#509
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution: The UAWG does not agree with the reviewer, and maintains
>the DOM requirements as P1 requirements. To address this issue, the WG
>invited assistive technology developers to a special teleconference
>dedicated in part to this question. A summary of this teleconference
>is available:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0243
>
>At this teleconference, there was clear consensus that AT developers
>found the DOM requirement important and useful, and await
>implementations.
>
>The UAWG points out that raw access to content is insufficient as a
>technique because it does not allow an assistive technology to track
>changes in the browsing session incrementally; any change to content
>requires the AT to reparse content and this makes tracking point of
>regard very difficult.
>
>The UAWG also points out that while cost and implementation burden are
>considerations, they are secondary to user needs in establishing
>requirements for this document. The UAWG will further address cost and
>implementation issues in Candidate Recommendation.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Issue 510: Conformance: How to observe OS conventions when
>building a cross-platform user agent?
>http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#510
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Resolution:
>
>  - The UAWG maintains that in general, it is a P2 requirement
>    to observe operating environment conventions because:
>
>    a) Conventions themselves are an accessibility issue (e.g.,
>       inconsistency in the user interface may cause problems
>       for users with cognitive disabilities).
>
>    b) Conventions are also important to interoperability with
>       assistive technologies.
>
>  - For some specific important cases, UAAG 1.0 includes
>    P1 requirements for following operating environment
>    conventions:
>
>     * 6.6: The UAWG considers that the conventional APIs for
>            the keyboard must be implemented due to interoperability
>            requirements.
>     * 7.1, 7.2: These are P1 because they are important for
>            interoperability and keyboard input consistency.
>
>
>  - The UAWG concludes that, while cross-platform design is certainly
>    beneficial to developers, those advantages do not override the
>    needs of users, who use a single platform at a time, and who need
>    consistency and interoperability on that platform.
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 18:53:13 UTC