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: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 01:28:47 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050501062849.557B71CC3D5@m14.spamarrest.com>

Hi Jason,

   I agree.  But remember, I didn't say not to define the term.  Just don't
define "user interface elements" as only being input.  That's all. 

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 12:08 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible


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 06:28:53 UTC

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