W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:33:16 -0800
Message-ID: <7164D4266FD7B94CA59D551C7FE6618D02E59D62@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
User Agent should be in the glossary (I think it is already) and we
should link to it from here.

It would be useful to find or create a short summary of the types of
configuration that a UAAG compliant browser should support.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:26 PM
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)
Subject: RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria

Can we think of a way to state this in specific terms. 

I am worried that if I were a page author I wouldn't know what a UAAG
compliant user-agent was?   (or even what a user-agent was).

Gregg



-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
> 
> How about this:
> A user can change the presentation to meet his/her needs, by
configuring
> his UAAG-compliant user agent.
> 
> It needs some work on the wording, but you get the idea.
> 
> The tool to test this is a browser.  You open the page in a browser,
> play with the configuration settings, and see if you can change the
> presentation without breaking the page.
> 
> In a separate test case document, we can list things to try, like:
> 
> Test case:
> In Internet Explorer, choose view/text size/largest
> 
> Expected result:
> The fonts get bigger
> The page is still usable
> 
> We could also create a test user-defined stylesheet, and directions on
> how to apply it.
> 
> Test Case:
> Apply the stylesheet at <uri>
> [directions for how to do that]
> 
> expected result:
> a bunch of stuff changes [need to define what, based on the stylesheet
> we supply]
> the page is still usable
> 
> The author would need to go through the test cases, and verify that
the
> results were reasonable.
> 
> Remember, testable doesn't mean machine-testable.
> 
> 
> I don't know of a tool that can test #2, but I think this requirement
is
> specific enough that someone could write one for a given technology.
> 
> I don't think that was true for the old success criteria.  What is
> sufficient markup?  How do I tell if content and presentation are
> separate?  And, what is content, anyway?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:03 AM
> To: Cynthia Shelly; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
> 
> Boy,
> 
> This just shows how hard this one is.
> I don't think we can have a checkpoint that asks the author to guess
at
> the capabilities of a user.  In this case do we mean
> "a" user (i.e.  any one user) ?
> or
> "all" users (i.e. any user)?
> 
> The first means nothing since they could pick someone who can see,
hear,
> etc.
> 
> The second one asks for a conclusion based on knowledge the person
> doesn't have.
> 
> Can we do this in a way that doesn't require any knowledge of the user
> or his/her needs?  (which will be the case for most authors).
> 
> RE the second criterion
> 
> Do we have a tool that an author could use to test this?   I don't
know
> of many people who could answer this by just looking at a page.
> Especially if they created it with a Visual Authoring Tool and didn't
> know HTML.
> 
> Cynthia --  I think these are progress but do you see the problems I'm
> referring to?
> 
> Gregg
> 
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly
> > Subject: Proposal for 1.5 success criteria
> >
> > Here's my action item from the 6th - reworked success criteria for
1.5
> >
> > You will have successfully separated content and structure from
> > presentation if:
> > 1.	A user can change the presentation to meet his/her needs, for
> > example by applying a different stylesheet
> > 2.	The following can be derived programmatically from the content:
> > a.	A logical, linear reading order
> > b.	Hierarchical elements, such as headings, paragraphs and lists
> > c.	Relationships between elements, such as cross-references and
> > associations between labels and controls
> > d.	Emphasis
> >
> >
> > I've taken out the stuff about markup and data models.  This is
mostly
> > because I don't think it matters how the structure is made
> > programmatically available, as long as it *is* made programmatically
> > available.  This approach is also more flexible for future
> technologies,
> > and a lot less wordy.  I added #1 because I felt that user control
> > needed to be made more explicit.
> >
> > Let me know what you think,
> > Cynthia
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 13:33:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT