W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Attempt to simplify and harmonize "content display" vs. "chrome" distinction in ATAG2 and UAAG2

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:29:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4877B49D.4050205@utoronto.ca>
To: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
CC: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Hi Michael,

I like where you're going with "functionality" which I read as (user 
interface) functionality.

I like "content-independent functionality" and suggest a couple other 
terms FOR UI STUFF THAT DEPENDS ON CONTENT:

"content-dependent functionality"
"content-contingent functionality"

Cheers,
Jan




Michael A Squillace wrote:
> So, pondering what Al wrote:
> 
>  > To me, the only clean statement is something like "features and
>  > functions" which the UA presents to the user through the UI that are
>  > independent of the content vs. those that reflect an interpretation of
>  > the content.
> 
> and given that this is what we're trying to distinguish, it seems now
> misleading to discuss "views" or other GUI artifacts at all. Part of the
> problem (or, at least, part of my problem), I think, is conflating UI with
> GUI. We're drawing a line based on features and functionality, not on, as
> Al put it, "layout rectangles." What would we say, for instance, about an
> authoring tool the display of which consisted only of an interpretation of
> the content and all other features and functionality were accessed via
> speech I/O? In this case, there would be  no "chrome" or "UI components
> independent of content" or "user interface," as we have understood these
> terms.
> 
> So I'd add the following choices to your list of possible terms, Jan:
> 1. FOR UI STUFF THAT DEPENDS ON CONTENT:
> "Chrome"
> "content view"
> "UI set by content"
> "UI dependent on content"
> "content View Mode" (suggests Reed)
> "content-laiden features/functionality"
> "content-oriented functionality"
> 2. FOR UI STUFF THAT DOESN'T DEPEND ON CONTENT:
> "content display"
> "user interface excluding content views"
> "UI not set by content"
> "UI independent of content"
> "user interface" (suggests Reed)
> "content-independent functionality"
> 
> --> Mike Squillace
> IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
> Austin, TX
> 
> W:512.823.7423
> M:512.970.0066
> 
> masquill@us.ibm.com
> www.ibm.com/able
> 
> 
>                                                                            
>              Jan Richards                                                  
>              <jan.richards@uto                                             
>              ronto.ca>                                                  To 
>              Sent by:                  Michael A                           
>              w3c-wai-au-reques         Squillace/Austin/IBM@IBMUS          
>              t@w3.org                                                   cc 
>                                        w3c-wai-au@w3.org                   
>                                                                    Subject 
>              07/10/2008 03:58          Re: Attempt to simplify and         
>              PM                        harmonize "content display" vs.     
>                                        "chrome"    distinction  in ATAG2   
>                                        and UAAG2                           
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I think we will need the "Applicability" section either way because we
> need to explain why we're putting labels of any kind after our success
> criteria. But we could use "content view(s)" and "user interface
> excluding content views" as the labels we explain that section.
> 
> So...terminology possibilities so far (plus a few further brainstorms):
> 
> 1. FOR UI STUFF THAT DEPENDS ON CONTENT:
> "Chrome"
> "content view"
> "UI set by content"
> "UI dependent on content"
> "content View Mode" (suggests Reed)
> 
> 2. FOR UI STUFF THAT DOESN'T DEPEND ON CONTENT:
> "content display"
> "user interface excluding content views"
> "UI not set by content"
> "UI independent of content"
> "user interface" (suggests Reed)
> 
> 
> Not to complicate things further but a further useful distinction is
> between content marked up semantically and not (e.g. AJAX without ARIA).
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> Michael A Squillace wrote:
>> That's fine but I like the original terms better and using "content
>> view" v. "USER INTERFACE EXCLUDING CONTENT VIEWS" seems to convey more
>> about what we're actually trying to distinguish. What about just
>> "content view" and "non-content view?" The approach below seems a bigger
>> hit editorially, right?
>>
>> --> Mike Squillace
>> IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
>> Austin, TX
>>
>> W:512.823.7423
>> M:512.970.0066
>>
>> masquill@us.ibm.com
>> www.ibm.com/able
>>
>>
>> *Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>*
>> Sent by: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
>>
>> 07/10/2008 01:02 PM
>>
>>
>> To
>>            WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, WAI-UA list
> <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
>> cc
>>
>> Subject
>>            Re: Attempt to simplify and harmonize "content display" vs.
> "chrome"
>> distinction in ATAG2 and UAAG2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Talking with Jeanne the other day she was a bit concerned about the
>> length of one of the terms I'm proposing to replace "Content Display"
>> and "Chrome".
>>
>> "CONTENT VIEWS"
>> "USER INTERFACE EXCLUDING CONTENT VIEWS"
>>
>> Thinking about it more, maybe we can get around this somewhat in the way
>> the terms are used...
>>
>> we could add an "Applicability" section to both documents modeled on the
>> some similar text from the Conformance Profiles section of UAAG 1.0:
>>
>> PROPOSED TEXT:
>>
>> Applicability:
>>
>> In some cases, a success criteria may apply equally well to all aspects
>> of the [authoring tool/user agent] user interface, including *content
>> views*. However, in other cases it is necessary to remove ambiguity
>> about the scope of a success criteria, in which case one of the
>> following labels will appear:
>>
>> - Applies to *content view(s)* only
>>
>> - Does not apply to *content view(s)*
>>
>>
>> Thoughts,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan Richards wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Hi all,
>>  >
>>  > Both ATAG2 and UAAG2 often require specific terms to distinguish the
>>  > part of the user interface that reflects the content being
>>  > editing/viewed and the part that is the software's own. For some time
>>  > we've tried using the terms "content display" and "chrome", but
> "chrome"
>>  > is especially off-putting for people. Also the fact the "chrome"
> covers
>>  > help documentation, which might be HTML pages is also confusing.
>>  >
>>  > So here's another terminological try (note: [/] denotes AU/UA
>> versions)...
>>  >
>>  > [AUTHORING TOOL/USER AGENT] USER INTERFACE
>>  > The display and control mechanism that [authors/people] use to
>>  > communicate with and operate the [authoring tool/user agent] software.
> A
>>  > user interface may be non-Web-based or Web-based or a combination
> (e.g.,
>>  > a non-Web-based [authoring tool/browser] might have on-line help
> pages).
>>  > For the purposes of these guidelines, there is an important
> distinction
>>  > between (1) *CONTENT VIEW(S)* the accessibility of which often depends
>>  > to some extent on the content being [edited/rendered, played or
>>  > executed] and (2) the rest of the [authoring tool/user agent] user
>>  > interface (referred to as the *USER INTERFACE EXCLUDING CONTENT
> VIEWS*)
>>  > the accessibility of which does not depend on the content being
>>  > [edited/rendered].
>>  >
>>  > CONTENT VIEW
>>  > The [authoring tool/user agent] user interface functionality that
>>  > presents content for user interaction. Content views may be
>>  > distinguished by:
>>  >
>>  > (1) *Editability*: some content views allow authors to modify the
>>  > content as displayed (e.g., [an "editing view"/an editable "source
>>  > view"]), while others do not (e.g., [a "preview" feature/the rendered
>>  > view typical of browsers, a read-only "source view"]).
>>  >
>>  > (2) *Nature of rendering*:
>>  >
>>  > (a) *instruction level content views* present the content
>>  > encoding instructions in non-rendered form (e.g., [plain text editing
>>  > views, form-based editing views that provide direct access to the
>>  > instructions such as selecting attribute values/"source view"]).
>>  >
>>  > (b) *rendered content views* result from fully or partially rendering,
>>  > playing, or executing the content. The broad range of potential
>>  > renderings covers conventional (often called "WYSIWYG") renderings to
>>  > less conventional renderings such as a graphical wavefront of an audio
>>  > file or the displays of text-only browsers. *Partial renderings* are
>>  > those in which some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or
>>  > executed, but not others (e.g., a frame-by-frame video [editor/player]
>>  > rendering the graphical aspect, but not the temporal aspect, of a
> video.
>>  >
>>  > (c) *meta content views* present properties, metadata or other more
>>  > abstract information about the content (e.g., [a content management
>>  > system that creates a Web-based calendar based on the author selecting
>>  > only the month and year/a "page properties" feature]).
>>  >
>>  > USER INTERFACE EXCLUDING CONTENT VIEWS
>>  > All parts of the user interface other than the content view(s).
> Includes
>>  > all user interface components that surround, underlie, or superimpose
>>  > upon content views (e.g., text areas, menus bars, rulers, pop-up
> context
>>  > menus) and also other Web content made available to the author/user by
>>  > the developer of the [authoring tool/user agent] (e.g. help files).
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Any thoughts on "CONTENT VIEW" and "USER INTERFACE EXCLUDING CONTENT
>>  > VIEWS" as a way forward?
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Cheers,
>>  > Jan
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>> --
>> Jan Richards, M.Sc.
>> User Interface Design Specialist
>> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
>> Faculty of Information (i-school)
>> University of Toronto
>>
>>   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
>>   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
>>   Phone: 416-946-7060
>>   Fax:   416-971-2896
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> --
> Jan Richards, M.Sc.
> User Interface Design Specialist
> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
> Faculty of Information (i-school)
> University of Toronto
> 
>    Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
>    Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
>    Phone: 416-946-7060
>    Fax:   416-971-2896
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information (i-school)
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 19:28:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:08 GMT