- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:32:49 -0500
- To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
- Cc: "simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk" <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>, UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
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