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

Re: QUESTIONS on resolutions stated in Minutes from 23 March teleconference.

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:41:49 -0600
Message-Id: <199903242237.QAA16607@staff1.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-cg@w3.org
If markup indicating element function is not in Web Content guidelines then
I think it will be meaningless to define it in UAs.  Authors will not be
looking in the UA guidelines on how to develop Web Content.

Comments in JRG:

At 02:28 PM 3/24/99 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>At 09:18 AM 3/24/99 -0600, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>>>2) Issue 42.  Proposed to remove class="nav" from checkpoint example 
>>>
>>>  JW: Proper use of the class attribute.
>>>  GV: The "hack" part is creating a pseudo-standard for UAs.
>>>      That's not in a W3C standard.
>>>  
>>JRG: Will there be any recommendation that UA can use to indicate that a
>>link is used for site navigation?
>
>[If I understand the way this came out]
>
>a) The proposed recommendation will not define any HTML extensions such as
>predefined class="nav."
>
>b) The proposed recommendation does not explicitly or implicitly say
>anything about whether such a technique is appropriate or inappropriate.

JRG: I don't understand this.  I would think that any information about
grouping or function that would improve accessibility for people with
disabilities would be appropriate.
Why did the group make this decision?  
Issue 26 states that there was a resolution to include at least class="nav"
in the techniques document.
It seems to also be mentioned in issue 83

>
>c) This class of technique is sufficiently controversial so that the chairs
>did not want to include it in something bearing the PR declaration of
>working group decision.

If not class is there no other markup available?

>
>d) There is motivation under various of the guidelines that _are_ in the
>Proposed Recommendation for techniques which would employ such predefined
>names.

JRG: This seems to contradict statement b in this e-mail.  

>
>e) The techniques are not viewed as frozen with the checkpoints.  It is
>appropriate for the techniques to evolve and for novel techniques to be
>initiated by the User Agent Working Group, particularly if it is believed
>that User Agents and Authoring Tools can and will implement them.
>Coordination with the authoring tools community is a key ingredient in a
>successful proposal in this area.

JRG: Is this a chicken or an egg problem?  I think this solution will make
the process less efficient for the other groups, since now all of Web
Content discussion on these issues will now be duplicated in both UA and
AU.   I thought these issues were going to resolved in GL, apparently I was
wrong.  

Has anybody discussed the process for transfering these issues to the other
groups for resolution?





Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 1999 17:37:57 GMT

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