W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Who's willing to test "Preliminary Review" section?

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:46:08 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Lila, I agree that it would be helpful to have such information available,
via a link. I'm concerned about the effort to put it together, and would
not want that to delay making the general resource available. Perhaps the
EOWG document is not the place to try to specify exactly how to perform
each section of an evaluation, but rather the ERT WG might come up with
parallel information as they make progress on naming specific techniques to
test each WCAG 1.0 checkpoint.

Harvey, Given that we have had considerable difficulty, with considerable
effort expended, getting browser developers to respond to basic questions
of user agent support for accessibility features mentioned in WCAG 1.0, I
am pessimistic about getting response to these more detailed questions
about configurations across multiple browser products and versions.

- Judy

At 02:27 AM 7/31/01 -0400, Harvey Bingham wrote:
>At 2001-07-30 18:23, Lila Laux wrote:
>>Having done these kinds of evaluations before (for Qwest) I know that lots
>>of people don't know how to turn off images, increase font sizes, etc. on
>>their browser, and that every browser has the commands/instructions located
>>in different menus and calls them different things (for example in Netscape
>>you turn images off in preferences, but in IE you unselect the show pictures
>>option on the advanced tab of the Internet options pop-up).  I also know
>>that I forget between times I do it and waste a lot of time rediscovering
>>the process... So I think there should be more instructions for how to do
>>the things that we are telling users to do: turn off images, change the font
>>size (larger and smaller) in the browser, turn off the sound, and change the
>>display color to black and white. The instructions will have to be browser
>>specific - so I guess we have to decide how many browsers we want to give
>>directions for.  Maybe this could be hyperlinked (Ex: link = for
>>instructions for testing your web page with X browser).
>>Am I the only one who has difficulty remembering how to do these things?
>Lila, I too forget and fumble. It looks like you have a good start to a
>worthwhile resource. Since WAI should not be exclusionary, the set of
>expected behaviors should be taken, say from the UAAG, and the request
>made to any browser supplier to describe how that behavior is achieved
>in the form of instructions for achieving it.
>The advantage of inviting the supplying vendors is so we can be as 
>inclusive as we get contributions, and not leave anyone out. As we 
>advertise that
>we are making a comparative document, I believe that the vendors will
>want to be properly included.
>Note that such a document is transitory, with need for updates as products
>get updated. That too is to the vendor's advantage, if we provide a
>means to make new versions.
>The problem of non-standard names for the desired effect suggests that the
>WCAG/UAAG checkpoint text have its alternative if any given for each browser.
>Browser suppliers should be invited to augment a starting list of these,
>contributed however incompletely by anyone who has the experience and
>organization to pull it off.
>The WCAG, ATAG, and forthcoming UAAG guidelines have associated
>"techniques" showing that some implementation is feasible for each
>checkpoint. There is no requirement that the method to meet a checkpoint
>is described for all browsers/AT.
>A place for vendor input could well be the User Agent Accessibility
>Guidelines Techniques document. This is expected to be changed more often
>than the Guidelines themselves.
>An answer from a browser supplier could be "depends on/requires some
>attached assistive technology."
>Descriptions of methods can be convoluted, depending on interdependent
>user settings and author/source desires. For example the style cascade
>of CSS2.
>Description of some capabilities, such as font size, are treated
>     IE:         Smallest, Smaller, Medium, Larger, Largest
>                 The default seems further adjusted by styles, say for hN.
>                 Accepts absolute font sizes, in keeping with the
>                 desire to round-trip from MS Word without loss of
>                 presentation. Not sure of precedence among explicitly
>                 included size in the document, stylesheets, and user
>                 preferences. Not sure of persistence across loaded
>                 documents with and without stylesheets or explicit
>                 size in document markup.
>     Opera:      21 percentage choices, 20% to 1000%, setting persists
>                 for new loaded document.
>     NSC 4.74:   smaller: Ctrl-[ larger: Ctrl-]  unlimited? sizes,
>                 setting persists onto new loaded document. May not
>                 affect content with specified font sizes.
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 12:47:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:48 UTC