- From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:43:54 +0100
- To: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- CC: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>, UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I agree too. 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 22:10, Jim Allan wrote: > 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 >> > >
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 06:44:24 UTC