- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:37:07 -0400
- To: Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
- CC: User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Thanks for the detailed review, Greg. Comments in line On 9/22/2013 3:58 AM, Greg Lowney wrote: > 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. DONE > > 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. DONE > > 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." DONE. Can you look at it and see if I did it the way you intended? > > 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. DONE > > 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". DONE > > 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". DONE > > 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". > DONE > > 3. Re 1.8.13 Reduce Horizontal Scrolling. > > > 3.a This is 1.8.12. I incorrectly estimated the renumbering. It is now 1.8.7. > > 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." DONE > > 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." DONE > > > 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> DONE - as agreed in the meeting of 25 September > > 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? > DONE. Refresh your view. I did that Friday night, I think. I haven't renumbered the date because other people are looking at the version. > > 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. > DONE > 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". > DONE > > 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. Kim and I will look at this at our next meeting. > > 7.c There is a trailing space inside the anchor element for > "Recognized", leading to an underlined space. > DONE > 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. > DONE > 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 >> > > -- _______________________________ Jeanne Spellman W3C Web Accessibility Initiative jeanne@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 20:37:01 UTC