- From: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:08:49 -0800
- To: Markku Hakkinen <mhakkinen@acm.org>, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>, Jan Richards <jrichards@ocad.ca>
- CC: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4CF44EA1.8000701@access-research.org>
Regarding the Summaries paragraphs...
Jan and Mark, the Rationale paragraphs that ATAG2 uses for guidelines seem equivalent to the Intent paragraphs that UAAG2's Implementing document uses for success criteria; are you suggesting something like the latter should be copied into our main document?
Both the Rationale and Intent paragraphs seem very different from the Summary paragraphs, whose goal is not to explain why a /guideline/ was included, but rather to provide a concise, non-technical description of its /success criteria/ and how they fit together. The original introduction is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2010OctDec/0007.html.
Chaals reminded us that "Actually success criteria really need to be in plain language already, I think. If you can write an upshot for a success criterion, you should replace the text..." One always has to decide when it's appropriate to make the success criteria easy to read, like a set of guidelines, vs. extremely specific and objectively measurable, like a contract; the latter is what you have to do it you want to be really sure that products implement things the ways you intended. You can of course put all the gory details into a separate document, but I though this one /was/ the gory details doc, and the Implementing was the friendlier version. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009AprJun/0107.html)
At some point we should also address Chaals' suggestion that we say "Make X Y" instead of "Ensure that X is Y".
In addition, here are a few corrections and improvements from Chaals, Gregg Vanderheiden, and myself:
Guideline 5.1 (former 1.1) Ensure that non-Web-based functionality is accessible:
Old:"Summary: The browser's own menus, buttons, dialogs, etc. need to meet any accessibility standards for *the operating system*."
New:"Summary: The browser's own menus, buttons, dialogs, etc. need to meet any accessibility standards for*software*."
Guideline 5.2 (former 1.2) Ensure that Web-based functionality is accessible:
Old:Summary: When the browser's menus, buttons, dialogs, etc. are authored *in HTML or* *similar standards*, they need to meet W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
New:Summary: When the browser's menus, buttons, dialogs, etc. are authored *using Web technologies such as HTML and JavasScript*, they need to meet W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
(Gregg suggested "authored *in HTML or* *other web technologies*" and Chaals "*using Web technologies (e.g. in HTML, JavasScript)*".)
Guideline 5.3 (former 1.3) Support accessibility features of technologies:
Old:Summary: Implement the accessibility features of all the technologies you're using, such as *supporting the platform's multitasking capabilities, HTML's* alt attribute for images, and document your implementation.
New:Summary: Implement the accessibility features of all the technologies you're using, such as *the platform's multitasking capabilities and HTML's* alt attribute for images, and document your implementation.
Guideline 5.4 (former 1.4) Render content according to specification:
Old:Summary: Render content according to the technology specification, including accessibility features (5.4.1), and let users *choose how content types are handled, such as opening embedded images, videos, or documents in separate applications or saving them to disk (5.4.2, 5.4.3).*
New:Summary: Render content according to the technology specification, including accessibility features (5.4.1), and let users *save content such as embedded images, videos, and documents to disk or open them in a separate application (5.4.2), ideally an application of their choice (5.4.3).*
Guideline 1.1 (former 3.1) Provide access to alternative content:
Old: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.
New:Summary: Let users see at a glance which pieces of content have alternatives like alt text or longdesc (1.1.1) and *choose* 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.*(1.1.4)*.
Guideline 1.2 (former 3.4) Repair missing content:
Old:Summary: *If the user chooses, provide* useful alternative content *when the* *author didn't*, such as showing a filename in place of missing (3.4.1) or empty (3.4.2) alt text.
New:Summary: *Let the user choose to see* useful alternative content *even if the* *author didn't provide any*, such as showing a filename in place of missing (3.4.1) or empty (3.4.2) alt text.
Greg
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Approving the Editors' Draft for publishing [was]Re: Meeting: User Agent Teleconference for 18 November 2010
From: Markku Hakkinen <mhakkinen@acm.org>
To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Cc: UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 11/29/2010 2:08 PM
> Any problems with the edits from the (non)Face to Face? No.
>
> Should we publish with the expanded Table of Contents? Yes. Any problems? No.
>
> Should we publish with the Upshot Summaries (relabeled "Summary")? Yes, but with comment. Any problems? Noted/agree with Jan's comment on Rationale. I like the idea of the rationale, and the 1.1 Summary seems incomplete (I started to reword but won't have time to address it fully until later in the week).
>
> mark
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org <mailto:jeanne@w3.org>> wrote:
>
> 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 <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 <http://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, 30 November 2010 01:11:17 UTC