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

Frame related notes on 16 July draft

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 19:02:14 -0400
Message-ID: <37AE0C76.C020725B@w3.org>
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
David,

Thank you for the frame-related comments on the 16 July draft [1].
I have quoted your questions/comments and made some of my own below.
For editorial comments or suggestions such as cross references, I
added them directly to the document and they'll appear in the
next draft. I've also added questions that raise issues to
the issues list [2]

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990716/
[2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html
    or
    http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-table.html

In quoted text below, David Poehlman comments are indicated by "*dp*".

[About the term "dependent user agent", section 3.1]
> *dp* is this still an issue that needs refinement?  it seems what is being  >described here as a dependant user agent is actually an assistive technology. 

(My comments here apply to this particular comment of yours and others
related to assistive technology/dependent user agents.)

Some assistive technologies are dependent user agents. A special
keyboard,
though an assistive technology, is not a dependent user agent. I've
taken into account your question and cleaned up instances
of "dependent user agent" and "assistive technology" in the documnet.

>There is indeed a class of agents which might be called assistive user agents >which includes pwwebspeak and perhaps ibm home page reader?  So could we >substitute here and or talk about assistive technology as adding functionality or >enhancing or enabling interaction provided the ua is assistive technology aware >and compliant with operations standards?

We will never come up with a water-tight definition of user agent
or assistive technology. By defining conformance based on sets of
checkpoints, we sidestep the need for a precise definition - we are 
arbitrarily choosing sets of checkpoints based on common and important
relationships between desktop graphical browsers and some assistive
technologies. The division in two may not suffice in that some software
may not fall neatly into one category or the other. This is a limitation
of this solution we've adopted. We can create other conformance
classes, but we have focused on two for the moment. It may even be
possible to define classes outside of the specification if and when
it becomes a Recommendation. 

I would recommend advancing on this issue by documenting what software
the Working Group considers to fall into each category and what
does not. Anyone willing to take this action item?

[About orientation in frames, section 1.1]
> *dp* how many frames and what their names are is also 
> helpful perhaps a list to pick from?

Added.
 
[About checkpoint 3.1]

>   3.1 Ensure that all product documentation conforms to the Web Content
>          Accessibility Guidelines. [Priority 1]
*dp* only if it is on the web or in weblettes?

Added as Issue #75 [3]

[3] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#75

[About checkpiont 5.12]

> 5.12 Allow the user to turn on and off rendering of frames.
>          [Priority 2]
>  *dp* what would a document look like if you set 
> this condition to off?  how would you get to the frame you wanted? 

Added as Issue #76 [4]

[4] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#76

[About checkpoint 5.14]
>  5.14 Allow the user to turn on and off automatic page refresh.
>   *dp* if autopage refresh is turned off, specify how manual refresh is 
>    to occur?

I propose this note after the checkpoint:

  "For example, when turned off, allow the user to refresh 
  the page manually instead (through the user interface)."

  We might also mention a configurable schedule for this one.

  Similarly, I also propose the following note after checkpoint 5.13 
  (auto forward on/off):

  "For example, when turned off, offer a static link 
  to the target resource instead."

[About checkpoint 7.2]

  > For dependent user agents. Ensure that the user has access to the
  > content of an element selected by the user. [Priority 1]

>*dp* we might want to widen this a bit and add efect of focus to the rest of the >document here but we'll see how it looks elsewhere I refer here to frames >although it is not explicitly stated here and table is used as the example, it >could just as easily be frames that are used and as the focus changes within a >frame the other frame or frames may change as we know. 

  I've added a cross reference to checkpoint 10.1, which says to
  notify users/software when document or view changes occur.

[About checkpoint 8.3]
   >For dependent user agents. Allow the user to navigate among table
   >cells of a table (notably left and right within a row and up
   >and down within a column). [Priority 1]

   >*dp* shouldn't this be a built in function of the graphical 
   >ua anyway since we don't know who will be using it?

   The WG decided to make this for dependent user agents only and that
   it sufficed for graphical desktop browsers to provide access to the
   table structure through a standard API. 

[About checkpoint 8.6]
> 8.6 Allow the user to navigate the document structure. [Priority 2]
> *dp* are frames part of the structure?

I would argue that they are not. The HTML WG and others felt that
frames were a visual presentation mechanism, not a structural mechanism.
CSS positioning captures most of what frames can do visually (except
setting
a target in a new window, for example). Note that a frameset does have
the useful property of allowing inclusions by reference. However, this
can also be achieved through the OBJECT element in HTML 4.0.

[About checkpoint 8.7]
>8.7 Allow the user to configure structured navigation. [Priority 3]
>    *dp* and beating it once again frames?

Yes, although this should be dealt with in checkpoint 8.1 about
frame navigation. The WG is expecting a proposal from Gregory
Rosmaita about configuration in general, so I'd like to
wait to see how it fits in with his proposal (refer to action item
in  [5]).

[5]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/08/wai-ua-telecon-19990804.html#minutes

[About rationale of guideline 9 on orientation]

>"...it may mean the cell currently being examined in a table,
>or the position of the current document in a set of documents..."

> *dp* or where we are in one frame in relation to another which may be the active >frame?  this could also include two frames that are updated as you move the focus >within one.

Added a reference to frame changes and a cross-ref to checkpoint 10.1

[About checkpoint 9.7]
>*dp* I am concerned here that selection and focus change notification may also >need to include what changes to the document as a whole they spawn.          

I have proposed [6] to drop this checkpoint since it's part of 
9.1. I'll add a cross-ref to 9.1

[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0084.html

[About checkpoint 9.13]
> 9.13 Make available the number of form controls in a document.
>         *dp* want to ad one here for frames?  also isn't this the one that is >being reworked?

This one is also dropped in [6], but the example of frames
can be added to the new checkpoint on contextual info.

Thanks for the comments David!

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Received on Sunday, 8 August 1999 19:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:15 GMT