W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

[w3c-wai-gl] <none>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:47:36 -0600
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002d01c194b9$67314f70$bb176880@laptop600>
Here is a summary of the results of the telecon meeting today 




CHECKPOINT 2.5
1 - need a complete list of generic event handlers.  (or a place where
they are officially defined. )   (PUT IN GLOSSARY?? )
2 - is a requirement for generic going to iNSURE keyboard acccess.  If
not then do we need to require keyboard access as an option?
3 - is there an exception for any type of direct manipulation interface.
What about flying a plane.  (note: remember that slow operation is
already required for non competitive or realtime situations

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 2.5 IS POSTPONED TILL WE HAVE GENRIC LIST.


Checkpoint 2.6
1 - Would be great to have a tool or a website that could test for
flicker rate.
2 - what is flicker.    "If I cant tell its flickering -- does it pass?"
3 - what if it is caused by slow computer.  How will I know?

NO RECOMMENDED CHANGES --  EXCEPT TO ADD AN EXAMPLE:
"Example 1: Your animation doesn’t flicker when played"


RE:  CHECKPOINT 2.7
1- Success criteria do not deal with any errors but spelling 
2- it should should NOT require that a lit be used "INSTEAD of" text
entry but rather "as well as". (User should have choice).
3- Should not have a checkpoint that says "handle input errors".  Too
open.  Too many types of errors and they are not even listed.  Also it
is not possible to recover from or correct many types. (most errors?).
What does "Handle" mean?    

CONCLUSION
A - current guideline is unworkable as worded.
B - good advice but not a checkpoint.
C- not worded right even for advice right now.

RECOMMENDATION:
1- It be changed to advice
2 - Reword as three pieces of advice as follows:  
"Where possible Provide suggestions when input is invalid due to
spelling or other causes "
"Where possible allow user to chose between selecting from a list and
providing direct input"
"Where possible User errors should be reversable or the user should be
given a warning."  


RE CHECKPOINT 3.1

Just started on this one. 
Comments so far

1 - sounds like good recommendation but hard to make specific
2 - success criteria sounds like a restatement of checkpoint
3 - what does "similar" mean.   Would two people agree?
4 - if things are too similar in presentation they confuse people.  (If
all houses looked exactly alike people with cognitive disabilities would
it harder to find their way home).  So this guideline needs to split the
difference between things being too different and things being too
identical.



All for now


Gregg
-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. 
Director - Trace R & D Center 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> 
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 19:47:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT