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

Re: Checkpoint 9.3

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:40:11 +0200
Message-ID: <008d01c24929$09ab4020$f26c2a97@k7l2g9>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Charles.

Intersting point!

I think that scripts can even be used to facilitate the interface
manipulation to some category of disabilities, with specific device
usage. Those who use the mouse don't need the same script aid for those
who use keyboard, and so on for many combinations. So the entire
question of  'device indipendent' event handler has to be revised? After
all, if some event handler is useful for those who use the mouse, it's
possible that it's not useful for others, and vice versa... It's no
content: it's interaction, and it depends on the cognitive, motorial and
sensorial abilities of the user. Everything has to be accessible. But
further (convenient? comfortable?) interaction is dependent by device
and abilities.

Should we talk more about 'device indipence'? Can we imagine web
interfaces that have different features for different devices, without
creating a barrier to content or functionality access (only a different
way of access: so, no need of equivalent - better: no *automatic* need
of equivalent: a human judge may help to evaluate case by case)?

Maurizio Boscarol

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Maurizio Boscarol" <maurizio@usabile.it>
Cc: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Checkpoint 9.3

> Well, I think that your idea about onlly having useful things is a
good one.
> But there are lots of people who are sighted, but who use a keyboard
> of a mouse to navigate. It might be even more useful to these people
> people who use a mouse, since many of them are really using some slow
form of
> interface that mimics a keyboard, so simplifying navigation is
> extra-helpful...
> In general it is difficult to identify combinations of disability taht
do or
> don't occur - as far as I can tell almost all combinations of
requirements do
> occur.
> Cheers
> Chaals
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Maurizio Boscarol wrote:
> >
> >Hello.
> >
> >It's my first post: soon I will write my own short presentation, as
> >requested by Wendy. For now, I've in the mess with a redesign, and
> >to point out a problem with guideline 9 and checkpoint 9.3.
> >
> >What if a event handler is used only as a feature useful, say, for
> >normal-sighted users? Like the feature of making something (as a
> >menu...) *disappear/re-appear in the page with a click*, only for
> >clearness
> >(and visible by default)? It must be considered a presentational
> >manipulation like changing color (changing visibility...), or I have
> >insert an equivalent device-indipendent event handler? Equivalents
> >not recognized by the browser I tested, anyway, and some of them are
> >allowed by xhtml specs for that element (not an 'a').
> >
> >I don't think the equivalent is necessary, 'cause the blind-sighted,
> >example, do not take advantage by manipulating the visibility of the
> >element! It's not an important functionality, but a visual-only
> >for some users. Little more than a gadget... ;-)
> >
> >My proposal is to better specify the requisite for event-handlers
> >device-indipendence in the guideline, including when and why, and
> >example.
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-device-independence
> >"...9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than
> >device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2] "
> >
> >should be:
> >"9.3 For scripts that trigger functionality useful to any category of
> >user (and/or not for presentational-only variations), specify logical
> >event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers. [Priority
> >"
> >
> >(Ehm... It can be be improved, i guess...)
> >
> >Please consider that very often scripts (DOM compliant, of course...
> >;-) ) are used in a variety of ways for creating some interaction
> >effect, that are not important for those who are unable to see the
> >effect, and even for those who can see they are not important (basic)
> >functionality.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >Thanks for any opinion.
> >
> >Maurizio Boscarol
> >
> >PS: Different validators give different evaluations on this case...
> >rapair tools suggested even an invalid markup to solve the
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
409 134 136
> SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ---------------- WAI
>  21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia       fax(fr) +33 4
92 38 78 22
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 11:39:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC