Re: TIMELY: Final "tweaks" to UAAG 2.0 before Last Call

Here are some observations on the changes you asked us to review, based on http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130916/.


    1. Re 1.2.1 updated


Fine.


    2. Re Levels of Conformance


2.a. Editorial: I suggest "AA" be changed to "AA (recommended)", to parallel the other two levels with their parenthetical phrases.

2.b. Editorial: re the intro paragraph to "Levels of Conformance", it's not really user agent developers who conform to UAAG20 at various levels, but the user agent they produce. Also, you might want to change "prioritize new features to develop" to "prioritize ways to improve accessibility", as some developers are likely to associate the term "features" with "big" changes, rather than minor tweaks to existing behaviors.

2.c Editorial: I'd replace the bullet items such as "Level A conformance: All applicable level A success criteria." with wording that is a bit less terse and ambiguous, such as "Level A conformance: *The user agent complies with* all applicable level A success criteria."

2.d Editorial: I'd replace "The three levels of UAAG 2.0 conformance are based on the level designations (A, AA, or AAA) of more than 100 success criteria (i.e., specific requirements)." with "The three levels of UAAG 2.0 conformance are based on the *corresponding* level designations (A, AA, or AAA) of *the individual* success criteria (i.e., specific requirements)." This also avoids rubbing their face in the fact that UAAG20 has more than 100 individual success criteria.

2.e. Editorial: Consider changing "inconvenience to other groups of users with disabilities" to "inconvenience to other groups of users, including those with other disabilities".

2.f Editorial: When I read "commonality" of things, I think of aspects which they share, not how widespread (common) they are. Thus, I would change "commonality of present implementations" to "how common implementations are today".

2.6 Technically, "UAAG conformance levels attempt to balance the needs" is incorrect, because the UAAG conformance levels are very straightforward, with no room for nuance. Rather, it is the *level designations of the individuals success criteria* which were adjusted "to balance the needs of people with disabilities with the difficulty the user agent developer could experience".


    3. Re 1.8.13 Reduce Horizontal Scrolling.


3.a This is 1.8.12.

3.b I suggest rewording the Note so that it reads more like instructions, rather than a simple statement of fact. For example, change "Note: Vertical layout languages fit within the height of the viewport to reduce vertical scrolling." to "Note: *For* vertical layout languages, *text should*  fit within the height of the viewport to reduce vertical scrolling."

3.c By the way, I thought we were going to change "the user can specify" to "the user can have" in cases where we did not require the user agent to also provide the opposite behavior. If we did that, the SC would read "The user can *have* text content in a graphical viewport *reflow* so that the content fits within the width of the viewport."


    4. Re Split of 1.8.1 and 1.8.x Customize Highlighting


4.a In my email of 11 September I listed five suggested changes, three of which would still apply after the restructuring; we discussed one in email, but none of the three appears to have been done. The three were:

<blockquote>

3.    If we decide to keep 1.8.x, it should be reworded because the agreed-upon wording does not work when taken out of context (i.e. it talks about highlighting, not about highlighting viewports). It should be changed to something like "When highlighting viewports as specified by 1.8.1 Highlight Viewport, highlighting options include at least" (which parallels the wording of 1.3.2, Highlighting Options).

4.    In the chat of 2013-07-18 I'd suggested that we add to 1.3.2 "(d) shape and size when the indicator is an image", but it was at the very end and we didn't end up discussing it.

5.    If we don't merge 1.8.x into 1.3, I suggest adding to 1.3.2 an additional list item, "blink rate, where blinking is implemented", thus paralleling the fact that blinking is referenced in 1.8.x.

</blockquote>

4.b By the way, is the plan to put off renumbering all the SC in 1.8 until one of the very last steps before this draft is published?


    5. Re Adding 1.6.5 from resolution


5.a The wording of the SC is acceptable, but it would be a bit clearer if it or the Intent paragraph were to say something like ", overriding any values specified by the author or inferences made by the user agent". This would parallel the phrase "overriding any values specified by the author" used in numerous other success criteria.

5.b Similarly, after the phrase "Much web content lacks the appropriate language indication or has an incorrect language attribute" I suggest adding ", and the user agent may not be able to accurately determine the language from the text".


    6. Re Added note on RFC 2119 text to the UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes


Fine.


    7. Re Disambiguated 3.1.1


7.a This seems to me to list item B reads as way too broad. It says "The user can avoid or defer... Information in the user agent user interface that is being updated or changing", but what does that really mean? Does the user have to be able to stop the browser from graying out menu items that aren't applicable to the selected content? What about changing the title bar to reflect the title of a newly loaded page? Do they have to be able to defer error messages? The older wording had this same ambiguity, but to a lesser extent, and where it said "non-essential or low priority messages and updating or changing information" it could be argued that "non-essential or low priority" applied the "udpating or changing information" as well as to "messages", and that's probably the easiest way to handle it. Unfortunately, I don't have specific wording that I find satisfactory.

7.b The new word order in list item A seems to subtly change what the qualifier "recognized" refers to. Before it was "recognized non-essential or low priority messages" but now it is "Recognized messages that are non-essential or low priority"; the latter seem to more clearly state that it applies to things that are recognized as non-essential or low-priority messages, whereas the new wording seems to apply to "recognized messages" that are non-essential or low-priority. Of course, since we have the global exemption for things not recognized by the user agent, including the phrase "recognized" may not be necessary at all.

7.c There is a trailing space inside the anchor element for "Recognized", leading to an underlined space.

7.d By the way, in the list of UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes, "UAAG 2.0 success criteria only apply to web content that can be recognized by user agents" might be better as "UAAG 2.0 success criteria only apply to web content *and its behaviors* that can be recognized by user agents". Because after all, the user agent can probably recognize the web content in a web page, even though it cannot fully understand the actions that its embedded scripts carry out.

     Thanks,
     Greg

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: TIMELY: Final "tweaks" to UAAG 2.0 before Last Call
From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
To: User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 9/20/2013 1:00 PM
> PLEASE ANSWER THE SURVEY BEFORE NOON ON MONDAY 23 SEPTEMBER
>
> I have prepared an Editor's Draft that will be the basis of the Last Call working draft.  Because other groups have had questions about the contents of the Status section of their documents, Judy has asked me to make sure the group approves the Status section. I showed it at the call on Thursday, but we had so many absences for the meeting, that I want to make sure the group approves.
> Editors' Draft:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130916/#status
>
> In addition, I have been going through UAAG preparing the documents for Last Call and discovered a few items that the group agreed to, but were not yet in the document. In the interest of dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, I would like you to check the changed text and give your updated approval to publish a Last Call Working Draft.
>
> To make our schedule of publishing on the 24th, please respond to the survey BY MONDAY morning, 23 September.  If there are changes, we may have to postpone publishing to the 26th, but I would like the document to be the best it can be.
>
> SURVEY
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/36791/20130920/
>
> CHANGES
> 1.  1.2.1 updated
> 2.  Levels of Conformance moved to Implementing. Kim wrote some new text for an introduction to Implementing UAAG, because otherwise, the Introduction went straight into the Levels of Conformance with no context. Check it out.
> 3. 1.8.13 Reduce Horizontal Scrolling. I heard back from the Internationalization Domain lead at W3C who said that inclusion of vertical layout languages was important and it was the most requested feature at a recent e-Publishing workshop.  I took the vertical layout text and moved it to a normative note. Combined with Kim's new title stem for the SC, I think now it is very clear that the purpose is to prevent horizontal scrolling, AND if it is a vertical layout language, to prevent vertical scrolling.
> 4. Split of 1.8.1 and 1.8.x Customize Highlighting
> 5. Adding 1.6.5 from resolution
> 6. Added note on RFC 2119 text to the UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes ( http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2013/ED-UAAG20-20130916/#applicability-notes )
> 7. Disambiguated 3.1.1
>