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

RE: Possible added SC to 2.5

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:14:42 +1100
Message-ID: <16918.41234.660930.439153@jdc.local>
To: "Mike Barta" <mikba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "W3C Web Content" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Mike Barta writes:
 > I like doyle's wording here. 
 > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doyle-Work
 > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:36 PM
 > To: Gregg Vanderheiden; 'David MacDonald'; W3C Web Content
 > Subject: Re: Possible added SC to 2.5
 > I propose the following:
 > "Forms, fields or other user input mechanisms that are required for the successful completion of the interaction are clearly identified."
I read this, and then had to review the mailing list thread in order
to understand what it meant, and what problem it was supposed to

As Gregg insightfully asked, what is the differential impact which
makes this more important for users with disabilities than for the
population of Web users at large?

I also think this should be generalized. What is the minimum
information that should be available to the user (via whatever user
interface is in effect) with respect to a user interface control? I
propose, at a minimum:

1. A label identifying the control;

2. The type of input expected (e.g., text entry, selection of an item
   from a list, selection of multiple items from a lit, etc.);

3. Where a list of options is offered, the list;

4. The current value of the control, for example the text which has
   been input, or the selected item or items in the list. The current
   value may also be a default value if the user has not interacted
   with the control;

5. If the control is marked as optional in the sense that no user
   input is needed to complete the interaction, this status should
   also be exposed.

The above is not wording intended for inclusion in the guidelines; it
is merely a sketch of requirements that are more comprehensive than
the suggestions made so far. At level 1 these or similar requirements
could apply to assistive technologies; at level 2 they could apply to
the presentation of the user interface as well.

I haven't mentioned option hierarchies, roles or other details that
are relevant to contemporary work in user interface design, but these
would have to be taken into account were the guidelines to move in
this direction.
Received on Saturday, 19 February 2005 02:15:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:52 UTC