W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Checkpoints 6.3-6.5, 9.3, 10.1-10.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:51:29 -0500 (EST)
To: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904021747280.12159-100000@tux.w3.org>
My comments marked CMN:
Wendy's marked WAC:

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  hello all - i'm back!  and amazed at how much work went into the guidelines
  while I was gone.  wow!  thank you all.
  
  I have six concerns about checkpoints 6.3-6.5, 9.3, 10.1-10.3.
  
  1.
  I believe the example for 6.3 focuses too much on NOSCRIPT and should
  instead say, first and foremost, that the page must remain usable when
  dynamic/interactive objects (scripts, applets, etc.) are not loaded (and
  we're showing that it is possible to do so).  Some of what scripts create
  is pure eye-candy which means that the page will still be usable without
  the script loaded (rollovers, highlights, etc.)  Also, some of this
  functionality can be provided by a style sheet. 
  
  NOSCRIPT should only be used when the page is unusable without the script
  and an alternative or description needs to be provided. Otherwise, we will
  end up with pages with NOSCRIPT that provide useless information like "this
  script creates image rollovers."  It is similar to providing null alt-text
  for certain images.
  
  Therefore, I would like to highlight that a. the page must be usable
  without the script (i.e. don't use scripts to generate text, link to other
  pages, etc.) then b. if the page is not usable without the script because
  the script provides an important mechanism or presentation, use NOSCRIPT to
  provide an alternative or a description.
  
  2.
  in checkpoint 6.4 - are we sure that user agents will provide
  device-independent means to activate event handlers?  
  
  Also, we say "ensure that event handlers are keyboard operable" - this is
  device-dependent and we need to be device-independent.  In my experience
  (using 4.0 browsers with win98), at this time to get the same effects with
  mouseless navigation as with the mouse, both logical (onfocus/onBlur)
  events and mouse specific (onMouseOver, onMouseOut) need to be implemented
  for each object.  I would suggest making this checkpoint more general:
  For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are device independent.
  
  Similarly, checkpoint 9.3 suggests using onFocus, etc, and should say
  something about using onFocus as well as onMouseOver or something.
  
  The logical/device-independent dilemma is not only a user agent issue, but
  a language one as well.  Early in the discussions of this topic an
  "onActivate" event was proposed.  Therefore, I don't think it is a user
  agent issue but an authoring good practice.  Even when user agents or the
  languages have more logical events, it will still be a good authoring issue
  to use the correct events.  therefore, I suggest dropping the "until user
  agents" statement.

CMN:
I agree with both the above
  
WAC:
  3.
  checkpoint 6.5 - this needs to be narrowed in scope or the script portion
  incorporated into 6.3.  
  
  The script related ideas seem to fit in with 6.3 - if the page is unusable
  without scripts, then provide an alternative - either a NOSCRIPT or a
  simulation or something (see discussion on 1st point).  
  
  However, I'm not sure what to do with the FRAMEs and image map piece of it.
  
  This checkpoint was originally intended to convey the idea that if you use
  a Java applet for a science experiment and someone can not access Java,
  then they might be able to use a movie of the simulation, or a still image
  and a text description, or just a text description.  
  
  
  NOFRAMES, for legacy reasons, is still more of a P2, but this should be
  qualified with an "until user agents" clause since more user agents and ATs
  are able to navigate frames more effectively.  this is very much an interim
  solution, since it is the old browsers that don't show anything for
  framesets that need NOFRAMES the most.  Therefore, we might consider adding
  it as a checkpoint in Guideline 10 - interim solutions.
  
CMN:
NOFRAMES is necessary alternative structure for framesets to be rendered
well in linear media such as voice, and most currently available braille
displays. This is not an until - there is nothing we can do about serial
media in the forseaable future.

WAC:
  4.
  checkpoint 10.1 - "do not change the current window without informing the
  user"  makes it sound like the author has to pop up a dialog window to let
  the user know the window is changing.  In the dynamic pages I have recently
  been testing, we use style sheets to hide and display content.  A screen
  reader will read the text when it displayed, therefore we have effectively
  notified the user by "causing" the screen reader to speak.  I would suggest
  changing this to read, "do not change the current window unless the user is
  able to determine the change."  However, this is dangerously vague.
  Perhaps in this case, we have already satisfied the "until user agents"
  clause of this checkpoint (as currently worded).  Also, this seems to fit
  better with guideline 7 (user control of time-sensitive changes)
  
  5.
  checkpoint 10.2 - This seems that it ought to be a note for checkpoint
  12.4.  I would suggest rewording, 12.4 to read, "Associate labels
  explicitly with their controls.  Note.  when controls are not explicitly
  associated, ensure that the label is properly positioned.  The label must
  immediately, ....rest of 10.2..."
  
  6.
  checkpoint 10.3 - It has been mentioned before that we ought to move 10.3
  to the table section.  I have often argued against it, since it is an
  interim solution.  However, we have interim solutions all over now (with
  the "until user agents" clause) and I think it fits best with tables.  Note
  that the rationale for guideline 10 only mentions checkpoints 10.4 and 10.5
  and based on my previous comments, we should do away with all but these
  last two (and perhaps add one for NOFRAMES).
  
  thoughts?
  --wendy
  
Received on Friday, 2 April 1999 17:51:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT