W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 15:08:03 +1000
Message-ID: <17012.25651.489663.526032@jdc.local>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lguarino@adobe.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > Right.   But it is simpler than that.
 > 
 > As per previous post - we can just say "user input interface elements"  (or
 > components).  Or some such.

The problem with this is that it merely reiterates the definitional
issue at another level: which elements are "user interface
elements/components" and which are not? If we don't provide a
definition and leave this to the intuition of developers, I predict it
will give rise to interpretive difficulties in applying the guidelines
as soon as people start to disagree over which elements require
role/state information. This will lead naturally to the question of
whether something is a user interface component, and without a clear
criterion, we run the risk of differing interpretations.

This is why I tried to specify in more concrete terms which components
of Web content are meant to have role/label/state/value information.

If there is a strong reason to believe that no definition is needed
and that "user interface component" (or whatever) is clear enough by
itself, then we can leave it at that; but I suspect that without a
good definition there will be too much scope for disagreement.
Received on Sunday, 1 May 2005 05:08:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC