RE: Survey for AUWG for 27 May (in place of meeting)
"Richards, Jan" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.accessibility.tools |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Alex, My comments inline marked JR2. (I've also removed the stuff that has been agreed on). From: Alex Li [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-24-13 1:15 PM To: Richards, Jan; AUWG Subject: 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) --- 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". JR2: Since the point here is to help people with photosensitive epilepsy...and since the author may not know that a video includes flashing until it plays (e.g. because they are opening content started by someone else), I think the most important part of the requirement is the pause feature. --- 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. JR2: I'm looking into where this changed and why... --- 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.