W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Proposed removing redundant checkpoint

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:55:57 -0400
Message-ID: <375D12DD.D9C62D11@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> At the checkpoint level, I think it is better to separate installation from
> repeat use.  You can have a common guideline about all user actions
> required to install, use and maintain... (check EITAAC report for sample
> language and cite at least in draft) <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/eitaac/>.
> 
> In the dominant pattern of commercial practice the installer is a separate
> program, not one of the functions of the program.  This colors public
> perceptions, and we should talk in publicly-understood concepts where we can.
> 
> This was a point where at least one vendor spokesperson drew a line: making
> a distinction between repeat use where access support was obvious to them
> and install transactions which are a "one time thing" and were perceived as
> less meritorious of the necessary investment.  If we wish overcome that
> perception, we will have to spell it out in two checks; not throw a blanket
> over them.

Hi Al,

One way to avoid the blanket is to enumerate the important
cases in the general checkpoint. Something like the 
following:

  Ensure that all functionalities offered by the user agent
  interface are available through all supported input devices.
  This includes installation, access to documentation, 
  and software configuration.

Then, to repeat the discussion in the rationale section and
techniques document.

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     (212) 684-1814
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 08:49:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:48:57 GMT