Re: Action-712 (fast) & Action-675

Make sense to me. And we get to close another action item

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org> wrote:
> IMO, this would also allow us to close Action-675 "Draft a proposal for
> adapting SC for repairing missing relationships to include a proviso for
> user being able to turn off repair. " since it is "upon request".
>
> On 4/11/2012 1:30 PM, 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
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________
> 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 21:11:07 UTC