Re: Approving the Editors' Draft for publishing [was]Re: Meeting: User Agent Teleconference for 18 November 2010

Greg sent very helpful comments on mostly editorial issues.  If I 
thought it was editorial, I just put it in.  But in the interests of 
full exposure, here are the edits I did.

On 11/23/2010 3:24 PM, Greg Lowney wrote:
> 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?

agreed.  Done.

> 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.

Could you give me the wording how it should be?  I'm a little confused 
at how the if statements would nest, and it would save me a lot of time 
if someone else figured it out.  :(  Thanks.


> 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.

agreed. Done.  I included the sentence at the end above the bulleted 
list, because I thought it improved clarity. Let me know if you don't 
like it.

>
> 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,".

agreed, done

>
> 5. In 1.5.1 the "(Level A)" was accidentally marked as deleted.

fixed

> 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)"

agreed, done

> 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)."

done

> 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."

done

> 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)".

I think it's a good idea, but we should discuss it. I think it goes 
beyond editorial.
>
> 10. Should we come up with summaries for principles, or only for the
> remaining SC?

Yes, I think it's a good idea.

> 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.

done

> 12. The line "Simon Pieters, Opera Software" in the list of contributors
> should have the company name in parentheses.

done

>
> 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?

I do that when I split the documents, which typically I only remember to 
do for publishing. If ever you notice that I haven't changed the title, 
let me know and I'll fix it.
>
> 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.

I am completely open to suggestions of another visual combination to 
distinguish deleted text. Tell me what you think would be appropriate 
and I will change it.

>
> 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).

I didn't want to drop everything down a level for just this one thing. 
I think that decreases the usability.  I'm certainly open to 
disagreement on this.

> 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 Wednesday, 24 November 2010 20:03:33 UTC