checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all of the functionality of the content is operable through character input to the content or user agent.

Wording ala the 08 January 2003 draft [1]

Comment #1a
Aaron Leventhal, 07 Oct 2002 [2]
Add to Benefits: physically disabled users that cannot use pointing devices 
or speech input. For example, users with ALS who use single switches to 
simulate keystrokes.

Comment #1b
WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle) , 4 Nov 2002 [3]
Benefits: The illustrated benefit is probably not such a good example as 
speech input is only appropriate in a limited number of cases. A better 
example would be that keyboard mapping for functions allows specialist 
switch input devices to work with the applications

Proposal #1
Add a 3rd benefit: Individuals who are physically disabled and cannot use 
pointing devices or speech input can have access to the functionality of 
the Web content or site.

==============
Comment #2a
WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle) , 4 Nov 2002 [3]
minimum level success criteria #: Could be made clearer i.e. user agents 
and event handlers may be too technical for some readers. Checkpoint 2.1 is 
particularly difficult to follow.

Comment #2b
Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [4]
Suggest rewording "Minimum Level" to "content uses only event handlers that 
are designed so that, at a minimum, they are operable through character 
input." The current wording can be interpreted as meaning an event handler 
can not also support mouse input (i.e. that it must be a keyboard event 
handler only).

Proposal #2a
event handlers are designed so that they are not tied to a specific input 
device (i.e., "device independent").

Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding support in user tools.

Proposal #2b
event handlers are designed so that they are not tied to a specific input 
device (i.e., "device independent").
The user must be able to interact with the content either
- through a pointing device such as a mouse or a stylus or
- through the keyboard or
- through keyboard emulation.

Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding support in user tools.

Rationale #2
I am toying with the idea of "user requirements" attached to each success 
criterion that explain *why* this criterion is important.  In other words, 
tie each success criterion back to a user need.  It might make each 
criterion too much and is likely redundant with the benefits (so they could 
be collapsed)...not sure I like it, but thought I'd give it a try.  A 
couple comments suggested we have more why/how info related to each checkpoint.

============
Comment #3
Terry Thompson, 21 Oct 2002 [5]
Maybe what confuses me here is the prepositional phrase on the end ("to the 
content or user agent"). Is it necessary? What else would a user be 
providing character input into other than the content, user agent, or both? 
As I think about it though, I'm confused by this entire checkpoint. Is this 
not placing an emphasis on character-accessibility over mouse 
accessibility? Why not "device-independence"?

Proposal #3a
Ensure that all of the functionality is operable via a variety of types of 
input device.

Proposal #3b
Ensure that all of the functionality is not tied to a particular type of 
input device.

============
Comment #4a
Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [4]
Level 2: what is a "more abstract event"? Same question applies if the 
wording for this should be "more abstract event handler".

Comment #4b
SAP (via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 [8]
level 2 #1: This item is not clear as currently worded and needs rewording. 
Does it mean to use device- independent event handlers? If so, say that 
instead. Otherwise, clarify. What is a "more abstract event"? "Used" how?

Proposal #4
Delete this criterion.  If they satisfy the minimum level criterion, it is 
not likely there will more that they can do...i.e., if they have already 
created something device independent, then creating something *even more* 
device independent is likely just to confuse people more than inspire them.

============
Comment #5
IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [6]
The Character input definition refers to a character set called the W3C 
Character Model. Are the tab and arrow keys part of this character set? 
link to where this character model is defined.

Proposal #5
If proposal #2 is accepted, then we would not need to rely on "character 
input."  For reference, W3C Working Draft: Character Model for the World 
Wide Web 1.0 [7] does not include tab, alt, or other keys that might be on 
a keyboard.  The model only refers to text strings (per my ignorant 
understanding of the model).

--
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20030108.html#device-indie-events
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0023.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0135.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0111.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0080.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0130.html

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 18:03:07 UTC