Re: Updated SVG comments document

Al.
I updated the document based on your comments.

1. The text only version also provides support for AT and
people with low vision which reduces the burden on AT
developers to develop custom programs for SVG access to text
descriptions.

2 Text only view provides a common text view between authors
and all users, including users with disabilities.  So if there
are problems, people at least have one common view to refer to.

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:24:00 -0500
>From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>  
>Subject: Re: Updated SVG comments document  
>To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, wai-xtech@w3.org
>
>
>At 1:25 PM -0600 11/24/04, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>>I have updated the WAI SVG 1.2 comments document to add
>>sections on benefits to people with disabilities. Comments or
>>edits can be sent to the list.
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2004-11-wai-comments-svg12.html
>
>Here are the local-edit suggestions that I promised in an
earlier mail.
>
><quote>
>Gray Scale Viewing Option:
>      Colors are converted to a grayscale values;
>      Colors with the same luminosity need to adjusted to
make them
>          distinguishable as gray scale.
></quote>
>
><change
>class="proposed to">
>
><html>
>
><dl>
>
><dt>Gray Scale Viewing Option:</dt>
>   <dd>Colors are converted to shades of gray.<dd>
>
></dl>
>
><p>
>The author should, if they can, change colors that appear as
the same
>shade of gray under this trasform.
></p>
>
><p>
>All authors should be afforded  the capability to readily
make this check.
></p>
>
></html>
>
></change>
>
><comment>
>
>The existing wording, read quickly,can sound as if the gray scale
>compositing option would be expected to make the necessary
changes.
>
>I don't think that's what you meant.
>
></comment>
>
><quote>
>
>Device Independence and Keyboard
>
></quote>
>
><comment>
>
>We have been doing work on generic approaches to these issues
in the
>context of the roadmap.  I have tickled Rich to see if there
is something
>more specific we should say here.
>
></comment>
>
><quote>
>
>Add new section in Section 10 Rendering Model related to
accessibility:
>      Describe disabilities benefited by these features;
>      Allow users to define a compositing operation be
applied to the
>         text element of an SVG document;
>      Allow users to define a compositing operation be
applied to the
>         entire SVG document.
>
></quote>
>
><change
>class="proposed to">
>
>
>Add new section in Section 10 Rendering Model related to
accessibility:
>      Describe disabilities benefited by these features;
>      Allow users to designate a compositing operation be
applied to the
>         text element of an SVG document;
>      Allow users to designate a compositing operation be
applied to the
>         entire SVG document.
>
>
>
></change>
>
><comment>
>
>in brief s/define/designate
>
>I don't think the present text says what you mean.
>
>I think you mean that the player will afford the user a
view-control
>dialog by which the user can designate [synonym: select] a
>compositing operation to be applied.  I don't think that you
mean the
>user should be able to expect the player to apply a user-defined
>compositing operation that isn't already defined in the
format specification.
>
></comment>
>
>
><quote>
>
>For authors to verify the text descriptions and structural
>information is correct they need to be able to view the
structure and
>text descriptions in a "text only" view of the svg resource.
>
></quote>
>
><change
>class="proposed">
>
><from>
>
>... they need to be able to ...
>
></from>
>
><to>
>
>... it is very helpful if they can ...
>
></to>
>
></change>
>
><comment>
>
>I can't quite concur with saying a text-only view is required
for the
>author to get it right.
>
>The real question I would pose to the authors is:
>
>"If you had to summarize this scene in terms of at most
five-to-nine
>parts, what would those parts be [verbal title; verbal
description;
>graphic scope by select-and-group]? What are the key
relationships
>among those parts [sentence or RDF triple per relationship
[refine ad
>lib]]? [Repeat for parts of those parts until the plot is
clear.]"
>
>The point I get hung up on is that the conceptual content the
author
>and eyes-free visitor share are described by a topological
graph of
>entities, attributes and relationships. Removing all graphics,
>particularly the graphic arrangement, is actually
counter-productive
>for the purpose of getting the author to verbalize the
notions involved.
>Better to verbalize the notions of the objects and their
>relationships in the actual topology of the layout, as opposed to
>some linearization that hides the graph structure.
>
></comment>
>
>
><quote>
>
>
></quote>
>
><comment>
>
>
></comment>
>
>
><quote>
>
>
></quote>
>
><comment>
>
>
></comment>
>
>
><quote>
>
>
></quote>
>
><comment>
>
>
></comment>
>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information
Technology
>>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>>MC-574
>>College of Applied Life Studies
>>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>>1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>>
>>Voice: (217) 244-5870
>>Fax: (217) 333-0248
>>
>>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>>
>>WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
>>WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
>
>


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/

Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 23:20:10 UTC