W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Until user agents... (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 10.1)

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:07:59 +0100
Message-ID: <004101c3c8e8$d34fdc20$6d652a97@mshome.net>
To: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>

Thank you very much, Wendy, for your good explanation.


> >The fact is: why are we using here "Until user agents"? Does it mean that
if
> >user agents would allow user to turn off the popup, then the author can
use
> >the popup?
>
> Yes, that is what it means.

Ok.

> >That is what I understand, but I think it's wrong. We should move
> >this check point from guideline 10, and reformulate it as "do not cause
> >pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window
> >without informing the user" and put it perhaps in guideline 13?
>
> If we publish a revised WCAG 1.0, it will be to correct errors; not to
make
> substantive changes.

Ok. There were two positions in the discussion in the webaccessibile ML. One
position were guessing that the check point wanted authors not to open popup
windows at all. I wasn't originally thinking that, but the discussion made
me doubtful. So we asked for.

Now, if we do not mean popup avoided, as you explained, then the changes I
proposed are not necessary. I think it's wrong to open popup windows in
general, but after all I agree that it'also wrong to set an imperative rule
about that because there may be cases where popup can be useful, if well
handled by user agent. Anyway, wcag should only point out the problems for
users when ua cannot handle them. Maybe a clarifying sentence or an example
in the techniques can help someone having the same misunderstanding like the
ones that were discussing in Italy. :) Something like stating the reverse
issue: "I.e., if ua can handle popup windows, then the authors can use them
if necessary, but be careful: popup can always be disorienting for some
users".

I thought that wasn't needed, but it seems like some foreign language people
could benefit.

> In last week's techniques telecon discussion of checkpoint 10.1[4], the
> initial feeling is that we can not deprecate this checkpoint yet.
> Therefore, in essence, we are saying what you would like to see, but with
> the hope that someday user agents will handle new windows better (even
> better than they do today).

Straight thinking. :)

Thanks, best

Maurizio Boscarol
Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 18:47:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT