Rewording suggestion for UAAG2 GL1.1 SCs

Hi all,

On the call, we spent a bit of time looking at 1.1.2...I wonder if the related group of SCs can be "tersified" as follows:

1.1.1 Default Rendering of Alternative Content (Minimum): For each type of non-text content, the user can specify a type of alternative content that, if present, will be rendered by default,. (Level A)
Note: Alternative content may be rendered together with the original non-text content (e.g., turning video caption track on) or may replace the original content (e.g., video with extended audio description replacing original video). 

1.1.2 Indicate Unrendered Alternative Content: The user can specify that indicators be displayed when unrendered alternative content is present for rendered content. (Level A)

1.1.3 Render Alternative Content: The user can choose to render any types of alternative content that are present. (Level A)

1.1.4 Default Rendering of Alternative Content (Enhanced): For each type of non-text content, the user can specify the cascade in which to render different types of alternative content, in case preferred types are not present. (Level AA)















(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC)
OCAD University
________________________________________
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org] on behalf of Jim Allan [jimallan@tsbvi.edu]
Sent: June-23-11 2:37 PM
To: WAI-ua
Subject: Minutes: UAWG meeting June 23, 2011

from: http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-ua-minutes.html


- DRAFT -
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
23 Jun 2011

See also: IRC log http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-ua-irc
Attendees

Present
    kelly, greg, jim, jan, jeanne
Regrets
    MarkH, SimonH
Chair
    JimAllan, KellyFord
Scribe
    jallan

Contents

    Topics
        Announcements
        Create Realistic Publication timeline
        review of Editor's Draft comments from group, generate status
questions for WD publication
    Summary of Action Items

Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeanne to bring the new timeline to Rec to WAI and W3M.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Date: 23 June 2011

<scribe> scribe: jallan

<kford> JA: Face to face 11/3-4, register.
Announcements

Next face to face Meeting: 3-4 November 2011 at W3C Technical Plenary

in Santa Clara, CA, USA. - http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/

HTML 5 review http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/Instructions_for_commenting_on_HTML5

Proposals for definition of user agents
Create Realistic Publication timeline

current timeline in charter http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2010/uawg_charter

js: W3 overall has gotten criticism about slow guideline creation

kf: having read new WD, where do folks think we are?

jr: still have a way to go. problem...we don't know what we don't
know. Issues can pop up at any time. its all still a guess

gl: most delays on our end come from us. haven't gotten much feed back.

kf: in process of writing review of WD. looking pretty good.

discussion of process

current charter: lc-aug 2010, cr-feb 2011, pr- aug 2011, rec-0ct 2011

js: don't need 2 implementations until CR

kf: Guidelines is good. they are aspirational. getting implementations
may be difficult.

jr: meeting GLs can be met by addons. there are lots out there.

js: testing materials must be done by CR
... must test implementations before we can get out of CR

kf: GL and SC need about 2 months work to be ready for LC
... October at earliest.
... implementing document feels rougher than the GL doc
... don't think we can get both docs ready by October

ja: have f2f coming up

js: add extra month for fudge. then 3 months for LC. do a WD pub in
the next week or 2.
... do we want another WD before LC

jr: have a pile of things to go over from the current review.

js: publish WD in Sept.

kf: pub 1st week of July then early Sept.
... will we be happy with content by mid Sept.

gl: we have to watch for slippage.

kf: need to move into 'ship mode', start locking things down.
... no more smithing, discussing, etc. on some issue.
... finish last bit of review. need to stop reorganizing. need to
change group behavior. We have a descent set of guideline.
... propose: 2 WD in July and Sept. work at f2f, lc in late november

jr: want developers to review the WD in Sept. work on comments in
Oct., final edits at f2f, WD in late Nov. then LC in Jan.
... haven't have many comments from developers at any time

gl: look at calendar, to check on conflicts. we are supposed to be
reviewing html5 for next few weeks.
... getting reviews in Aug. from Europeans will be difficult.
... whats going on the end of September. will we get a good review?

kf: Jan 2012 is doable
... Sep. WD can push for UA developers to review. then WD in Nov.
after f2f, and LC in Jan.

js: generally don't get lots of comments till LC

kf: shares his plans for internal MS review

js: are we in agreement for LC in January?

kf: any objections to 3 WD in July, Sept. and Nov, with LC in January.

gl: where do tests and implementations come in.

js: should have some done by last call. create test cases to make sure
SC make sense.

kf: thinks we can work through those. implementation doc has helped
with thinking about testing.

Resolved: 3 WD in July, Sept. and Nov, with LC in January.

js: ATAG has been a year in getting to second last call

jr: but had to do substantial rewrites, etc.

js: thinks we will have to do a second LC, because few comments so far.

kf: sept?

js: yes, Oct 2012 is better. then second last call in July 2013

kf: PR?

js: CR test all implementations for all SC (WCAG was 9 months)
... wcag was complex. so is UAAG, we have more SC

kf: thinks testing will be quick

gl: finding addons, extensions, etc. may slow down process. or having
them created may take a while also.

kf: between now and Jan, need to find implementations to prepare for LC/CR

ja: implementations may help in resolving issues during last call.

Corrections: second LC June/July 2012. CR in Oct. 2012.

kf: PR March 2013.
... RC in May 2013

js: we could save lots of time if get comments and implementation commitments.

kf: comfortable with this schedule. any objections?

[silence]

<jeanne> ACTION: Jeanne to bring the new timeline to Rec to WAI and
W3M. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/23-ua-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-572 - Bring the new timeline to Rec to WAI
and W3M. [on Jeanne F Spellman - due 2011-06-30].

kf: if any body knows anybody new to recruit to group...
review of Editor's Draft comments from group, generate status
questions for WD publication

review emails on review

js: KP and JS to do editors pass on small changes tomorrow.
... wants to generate questions for status of WD

ja: new organization

kf: Focus work.

gl: focus is more granular. does it make more sense.

js: media section fleshed out.

kf: things deleted.

js: they were not a11y related.

<Jan> brb

<Greg> Work on keyboard focus and navigation was primarily
distributing the success criteria into several more specific
guidelines, and addressing asymmetries (e.g. where something had been
applied to content that should lso have applied to user agent user
interface).

<Jan> back

kf: recycle previous questions

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2011AprJun/0079.html

kf: whack sentence about things that UA doesn't support (braille production)

all agree

kf: 1.2.3 The user can specify whether or not the user agent should
attempt to predict associations from author-specified presentation
attributes (i.e. position and appearance). (Level AAA)
... should delete. screen readers have tried this for years...usually not well.

ja: SH may have objections. this is his SC.

kf: no UA does this.

jr: depends of def of UA.

kf: 1.3.1 editorial. doesn't make sense. makes a rewrite.

gl: right, there are problems.

js: let kim and I thrash through this.

kf: do we want summary for all GL

ja: +1

kf: will need to write them.

gl: need to resynch GL and summarys

kf: 1.10.2 Note: 1st sentence make no sense.

jr: Note serves no purpose.

gl: delete ok, but capture note in examples in the IER

ja: 1.1.2 mentions longdesc rendered inplace of image. is this right?
how to make it happen.

kf: and JR - yes, longdesc in place of img with reflow was the intent.
... don't we have a reflow SC. (all looking)

issue: need some SC about reflow of content when alternatives put in
the document.

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-87 - Need some SC about reflow of content
when alternatives put in the document. ; please complete additional
details at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/87/edit .



[End of minutes]

--
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 20:01:13 UTC