RE: Survey for AUWG for 27 May (in place of meeting)

Inline below.

From: Richards, Jan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 9:26 AM
To: AUWG
Subject: RE: Survey for AUWG for 27 May (in place of meeting)


Hi all,



Thanks for the answers so far! Alex, in particular, made a few comments that I'd like to comment on:



---



Q: The need for positive reframing of the IF clause in select success criteria:



Alex: "Don't agree with charactering the wording as dangerous"



JR: You're right, I probably should have said something like "complicating" instead of "dangerous".



---



Q: A.3.2.1:



Alex suggests:  "The authoring tools does not include session time limits or the authoring tool can automatically save edits made before the session time limits."



JR: I agree with Alex's wording.



---



Q: A.3.3.1:



Alex suggests: For authoring tool that plays visual time-based content, one of the following is true:

a) The visual time-based content does not play automatically

b) The visual time-based content can be set to not play automatically

c) The visual time-based content can be paused



JR: I'd prefer not to have Pause OR auto-play, but I can see you are trying to remove the requirement for a setting, so how about (I've also removed "render" since it is implied by play)?:

A.3.3.1 Static View Option: If an editing-view can play visual time-based content, then playing is not necessarily automatic upon loading the content and OR playing can be paused. (Level A) AL: I prefer my proposal because the proposal seems far more straight forward.  But that's editorial.  I'm fine either way as long as the "and" is replaced with an "or".



---



Q: B.2.1.1



Alex: Copy and paste error in the survey. It should be, "B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): The authoring tool does not place restrictions on the web content that authors can specify or those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)"



JR: This looks the same to me...maybe Jeanne fixed the survey?... Alex: Do you agree with the text you pasted in? AL: Yes, I agree



---



Q: B.2.3.2



Alex: When did we add "semi-automatically" in the SC text? What does that mean? Is that testable? I'm okay with the rest.



JR: It was always there and is a define term (http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20120924/#def-Semi-Automated-Checking) - though a link is MISSIING in the document - that basically means that a person's judgement is required. For example, showing a alt field in an image insertion dialog filled with "Image" would be a failing semi-automated repair. Not showing the field and simply putting "Image" into the markup would be a failing fully automated repair.

AL: the term "semi-automatic" was not in B.2.3.2, at least not in the last public draft.  If it was added later on, I have no memory of it.  Also, the definition is about checking, but the context here is about suggesting alt-text.  That's not checking.  Even at the practical level, how does an authoring tool semi-automatically make a suggestion?  Are you saying that the author would do something like ask the authoring tool to make a suggestion of alt-text instead of having one suggested by default?  I guess that is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

---



Cheers,

Jan





























































(MR) JAN RICHARDS

PROJECT MANAGER

INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)

OCAD UNIVERSITY



T 416 977 6000 x3957

F 416 977 9844

E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>





> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:[email protected]]

> Sent: May-23-13 12:13 PM

> To: AUWG

> Subject: Survey for AUWG for 27 May (in place of meeting)

>

> Survey that replaces the meeting of 27 May.  Please answer the survey

> before Monday (US holiday) so that we do not fall behind our timeline.

> There are 9 questions.

>

> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20130523/

>

> New survey on rewording "If clause" success criteria to make it easier to find

> implementations. The "if" clauses are making it difficult to identify tools that

> match an undesirable behavior.  These changes should not change the

> meaning or intent of the success criteria, just make it easier identify tools

> with desirable behavior.