- From: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:24:42 -0800
- To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- CC: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4CEC230A.4070602@access-research.org>
I think the expanded table of contents and summaries are good additions (subject to question #1 below).
Here are some comments, most but not all relating to the marked changes.
High Priority:
1. I notice that only two sections are currently identified as normative: "Conformance" and "Appendix A: Glossary". Shouldn't the SC themselves be normative? I see in ATAG the entire Guidelines section, which contains the SC, is prefixed with "The success criteria and applicability notes in this section are normative", and it seems we should have something like that. However, would it still be OK to have non-normative Summaries in each Guideline?
2. "4.1.5 Write Access" has the correct wording crossed out, and a different SC taking its place. It previously read "If the user can modify the state or value of a piece of content through the user interface (e.g., by checking a box or editing a text area), the same degree of write access is available programmatically. (Level A)", but now reads "If a User Agent keeps an internal representation of the user content in terms of element structure, relationships between elements, element meaning, or some combination thereof, it must expose this internal representation via an appropriate means (normally by using the platform accessibility architecture or a programmatically available DOM) (level A)". Simon proposed this new SC in email of 5/28/10, with the stated intention "To overcome possible problems related to decentralized-extensibility." His email said it should be inserted at (i.e. before), rather than replace, the current 2.1.5 (Write Access) which is now 4.1.5.
3. I suggest that in 1.3.1 the phrase "so that each is uniquely distinguished" be changed to "so that each class is uniquely distinguished" or "so that each type is uniquely distinguished". It currently reads: "1.3.1 (former 3.5.1) Highlighted items: The user can specify that the following be highlighted so that each is uniquely distinguished The user has the option to highlight the following classes of information so that each is uniquely distinguished. (Level A): * (a) selection, * (b) content focus, * (c) recognized enabled elements * (d) presence of alternative content * (e) recently visited links". It is not the intention that all recognized enabled elements be uniquely distinguished, just that they be distinguished from disabled elements.
4. SC 1.3.2 currently reads "1.3.2 (former 3.5.2) Highlighting options: The user can specify highlighting options that include at least: (Level A)". I know we discussed the options of either combining this with 1.3.1 or making them refer to each other, but I can't remember the resolution. If we don't want to combine them, I suggest that 1.3.2 (Highlighting Options) start with something like "When highlighting classes specified by 1.3.1,".
5. In 1.5.1 the "(Level A)" was accidentally marked as deleted.
6. I suggest changing the phrase "the viewport moves" to something like "the viewport's content moves", which seems a clearer and more accurate description of panning and zooming; after all, the viewport (window, frame, etc.) is itself not moving. This would apply in "1.8.2 (former 3.10.2) Move Viewport to Selection and Focus: When a viewport's selection or input focus changes, the viewport moves as necessary to ensure that the new selection or input focus location is at least partially in the visible portion of the viewport" and in "2.6.3 (former 4.6.3) Match Found: When there is a match, the user is alerted and the viewport moves so that the matched text content is at least partially within it. The user can search for the next instance of the text from the location of the match. (Level A)"
Medium Priority:
7. Now that we've deleted 1.5.2, the summary of 1.5 needs to change to "Let users adjust the volume of each audio track relative to the global volume level (1.5.1)."
8. The Summary for 1.1 should end with "(1.1.4)". It currently reads: "Summary: Let users see at a glance which pieces of content have alternatives like alt text or longdesc (1.1.1) and click on an item to see its available alternatives (1.1.3); they can also choose at least one alternative like alt text to be always displayed (1.1.2), but it's recommended that they also be able to specify a cascade, like alt text if it's there, otherwise longdesc, otherwise, filename, etc."
9. Should we split 1.5.1 into two SC? The first would be "1.5.1 Global Volume: The user can independently adjust the volume of all audio tracks the user agent renders, relative to the global volume level set through operating environment mechanisms (Level A)" and the second would be "1.5.2 Respect Mute: Do not override a global mute setting except only on explicit user request and when the user has been cautioned about the implication (Level A)".
10. Should we come up with summaries for principles, or only for the remaining SC?
Purely formatting and stylistic:
11. SC 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 should have their titles' second words capitalized, to match the style used elsewhere.
12. The line "Simon Pieters, Opera Software" in the list of contributors should have the company name in parentheses.
13. Currently the <title> elements for both the guidelines document and the implementing document are "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0". Could we change the <title> attribute of the Implementing document to start with "Implementing" to make it easier to tell their windows/tabs apart?
14. If possible, please change the formatting so that terms inside <span class="diff-old"> don't appear as dark blue text on dark brown background, which makes them difficult to read.
15. The section heading "UAAG 2.0 Guidelines"is the same heading level as the highest level thing supposedly beneath it. To have the heading levels accurately reflect the document structure, it seems like the "Guidelines" heading should remain h2, but each principle be h3 (instead of h2), each guideline be h4 (instead of h3), and each success criterion be h5 (instead of h4).
Thanks,
Greg
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Approving the Editors' Draft for publishing [was]Re: Meeting: User Agent Teleconference for 18 November 2010
From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
To: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 11/18/2010 9:45 AM
> Too bad that we had to cancel, as it turned out that I actually have some time-critical work for the group.
>
> The chairs and I had been discussing publishing a UAAG draft before Christmas. However, with vacations and W3C publishing moratoria schedule, I want to get the draft approved this week, rather than waiting until our next meeting 2 December.
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-UAAG20-20101117/
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20101117/
>
> Please look at the new draft and let me know (Y or N):
>
> ___ Any problems with the edits from the (non)Face to Face?
>
> ___ Should we publish with the expanded Table of Contents? Any problems? (http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-UAAG20-20101117/#toc)
>
> ___ Should we publish with the Upshot Summaries (relabeled "Summary"? Any problems? (http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-UAAG20-20101117/#summary11)
>
>
> I am working on drafting the announcements and the status section. Are there any changes that we particularly want to draw people's attention to? (e.g. changes to focus, rewording Principle 1 & 3)
>
> Are there any particular feedback questions we want to ask for? Please remember, the more engaging the question, the more likely people will actually look at the draft.
>
> I also wanted to ask for some design help with spacing, leading, colors, etc. I think the document could look more professional with a little attention to those details. I can do the CSS, I need the assistance with what it should be.
>
> jeanne
>
> On 11/18/2010 12:17 PM, Kelly Ford wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We have enough regrets for today that at this point we are going to cancel the meeting. I would need to give my own regrets too.
>>
>> As a reminder next week is a holiday here in the U.S. so we will not have a meeting.
>>
>> Kelly
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Harper [mailto:simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:01 AM
>> To: Kelly Ford
>> Cc: UAWG
>> Subject: Re: Meeting: User Agent Teleconference for 18 November 2010
>>
>> Regrets for tonight's meeting.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Si.
>>
>> =======================
>>
>> Simon Harper
>> University of Manchester (UK)
>>
>> More: http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
>>
>>
>> On 17/11/2010 00:50, Kelly Ford wrote:
>>>
>>> Meeting: User Agent Teleconference for 18 November 2010
>>>
>>> Date: Thursday, 18 November 2010
>>>
>>> Time: 1:00-2:30 pm Boston Local Time, USA (18:00-19:30 UTC/GMT)
>>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
>>>
>>> Call-in: Zakim bridge at: +1-617-761-6200, code 82941# for UK use
>>>
>>> +44.203.318.0479 (London)
>>>
>>> IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #ua.
>>>
>>> Chair: Jim Allan, Kelly Ford
>>>
>>> Agenda+ Discuss strategy to get us to last call/final document review
>>>
>>> Agenda+ Discuss editor's notes from current UAAG draft -
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-UAAG20-20101109/
>>>
>>> Agenda+ Review proposals sent to list
>>>
>>> Agenda+ Action Item Review
>>>
>>> Agenda+ Talk about Principle 2, Operable
>>>
>>> Links to key Documents:
>>>
>>> editor versions
>>>
>>> Guidelines: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-UAAG20-20101018/
>>>
>>> Implementing:
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20101018/
>>>
>>> Master Document from recent video meeting -
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/ED-UAAG20-20101109/
>>>
>>> Public documents
>>>
>>> Guidelines - http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-UAAG20-20100617/
>>>
>>> Implementing - http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-IMPLEMENTING-UAAG20-20100617/
>>>
>>> -- Attendance survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/UAWG20100707/
>>>
>>> -- Scribe schedule and scribing help:
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/scribing.html
>>>
>>> -- Please monitor your open Action Items:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/actions/open
>>>
>>> -- Open Issues:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/open s updated documents
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 20:27:06 UTC