Re: Action 712 (fast)

Jan,
I think you've captured it.
The level from 1.2.x from Simon's emails is more than AAA. On a basic
level (missing alts, mismatched or missing label/id) this is
implementable. I am sure there are more complex
alternatives/associations with HTML or other technologies. I can live
with AA level. I agree that there is little likely hood of anyone
complying with 1.2.x at AAA.

Jim

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thanks for the list of changes...but what would be most helpful is a listing of the actual final proposed SCs. My guess from your emails is that the 4 SCs currently in GL1.2 will be replaced by just these two:
>
> 1.2.3 Repair Missing Associations: 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) ## DONE TPAC
>
> 1.2.X HANDLE ???: In situations where missing or empty alternative content or associations can be identified, and when those elements achieve focus, the user agent will notify the user, and provide a mechanism to relate all available metadata to the user, upon their request. Thereby, enabling the user to take appropriate alternative action. Level???
>
>
> --
> (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
> jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
> Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
> Faculty of Design | OCAD University
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simon Harper [mailto:simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk]
>> Sent: April 11, 2012 3:00 AM
>> To: Richards, Jan
>> Cc: UAWG list
>> Subject: Re: Action 712
>>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> So let me try and simplify:
>> 1) I think 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are redundant - no one will implement them at AAA,
>> and technology isn't really good enough just yet; but we should present the
>> information we have (the information we would have to present to the
>> computational algorithm for it to try and repair) to the user.
>> 2) lets remove both 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
>> 3) 1.2.4 seems good but needs extending with the remnants of 1.2.1 and
>> 1.2.2 so that it presents the information (the information we would have to
>> present to the computational algorithm - 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 - for it to try and
>> repair) too.
>> 4) 1.2.3 is aspirational and seems OK - it's not much possible right now but
>> we've agreed it so it's fine. I think 1.2.3 gets applied first and then
>> (1.2.1+.2+.4) my suggestion when 1.2.3 fails.
>>
>> I'd also say my suggestion could be applied in the case of a missing
>> association too - in that we recognize something is missing, the user is
>> notified, if they ask for it the (form field, say) information is provided to
>> them.
>>
>> Does this clarify?
>>
>> Si.
>>
>> PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response
>> please include the word 'fast' in the subject line.
>>
>> =======================
>> Simon Harper
>> http://simon.harper.name/about/card/
>>
>> University of Manchester (UK)
>> Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group
>> http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk
>>
>>
>> On 10/04/12 18:55, Richards, Jan wrote:
>> > Hi Simon,
>> >
>> > There is a lot going on in your message. Can you please list all of the success
>> criteria that would be present in your rewording of Guideline 1.2?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jan
>> >
>



-- 
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 Wednesday, 11 April 2012 14:33:20 UTC