- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:37:19 -0500
- To: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Cc: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
New 1.2.x wording works for me. Jim On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org> wrote: > The grammar is a little awkward. I would propose: > > Delete 1.2.1 & 1.2.2 > > Add: > 1.2.X Provide Available Information: If missing or empty alternative content > or associations are recognized, the user agent will notify the user and > provide a mechanism to relate all available metadata to the user upon > request. (Level AA) > > ______________________________________________ > > Existing: > 1.2.1 Repair Missing Alternatives: > > The user can specify whether or not the user agent should generate and > render repair text (e.g. file name) when it recognizes that the author has > not provided alternative content. (Level A) @@ 712 > > 1.2.2 Repair Empty Alternatives: > > The user can specify whether or not the user agent should generate and > render repair text (e.g. file name) when it recognizes that the author has > provided empty alternative content. (Level AAA) @@ 712 > > > 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 > > 1.2.4 Broken Alternative Content: > > The user can be notified when the user agent cannot render alternative > content (e.g. when captions are broken). (Level AAA)## DONE 5 April 2012 > > > > > On 4/11/2012 10:32 AM, Jim Allan wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > _______________________________ > Jeanne Spellman > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative > jeanne@w3.org > -- 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 18:37:49 UTC