- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:08:26 -0500
- To: WAI-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Si, are you wanting A or AAA. I think A from your previous emails. Just wanting to clarify. Jim On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Also fine for me - but not the AA. > > > 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 11/04/12 18:30, Jeanne Spellman 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- 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 21:08:55 UTC