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

Proposal to generalize checkpoint on active element rendering [Was: Proposal for link-related orientation checkpoints]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 19:20:42 -0400
Message-ID: <37AE10CA.D2BBB0F0@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

The proposal below addresses link-related checkpoints
in guideline 9 (Orientation). However, in [2], there
are link-related checkpoints related to graphical
rendering of link information:

7.12 Provide a mechanism (e.g., through style sheets) to 
     distinguish visited links from unvisited links. [Priority 3] 
        Note. Using color as the only distinguishing 
              factor does not suffice since color may not
              be perceivable by all users or rendered by all devices. 

7.13 Allow the user to specify (e.g., through style sheets) that 
     images used in links must have borders. [Priority 3] 

Should these checkpoints be folded into the ones proposed below,
or do they merit a separate existence? As written, 7.12 would
fit into the first checkpoint proposed below. 

However, 7.13 says "Use a visual highlighting mechanism to tell
people this image is a link." Checkpoint 7.13 doesn't quite fall
under 1.2:  "Ensure that the user can interact with all active 
elements of a document in a device-independent manner." since
it suggests (to me) activation, not recognition of a link.

I propose that we modify 7.13 and move it to guideline 6
(user control of styles) or guideline 9 (orientation, where
similar checkpoints reside):

  Provide a mechanism for highlighting and identifying (through
  a standard interface where available) active elements of
  a document.
    For example, allow the user to specify that images in links
    be rendered with borders.

 - Ian


Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I received an action item at the 28 July teleconf [1] to propose
> a checkpoint that would merge checkpoints 9.16, 9.17, and 9.18
> as defined in the 16 July draft [2]. In that draft, they read:
> 
> - Make available whether a chosen link (target) has already been visited
> - Make available whether a chosen link (target) is local to the
> document.
> - Make available whether following a link will involve a fee.
> 
> In light of decisions at the 4 August teleconf [3], I propose the
> following
> checkpoints:
> 
> 1) Make available information about a link that will enable the
>    user to decide whether to follow the link.  [Priority 3]
>      NOTE: Useful information includes: whether the link has already
>           been visited, whether it leads to a different document, and
>           what is the expected natural language of the link target.
> 
> 2) Allow the user to know whether following a link will involve a fee.
>    [Priority 2].
>       NOTE: This information may be provided through the standard user
>       interface provided the interface is accessible. Thus, any prompt
>       asking the user to confirm payment must be accessible.
> 
> For checkpoint 2, please note that this was agreed upon at the
> 4 August teleconference. [3].
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0056.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990716/
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0078.html
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Received on Sunday, 8 August 1999 19:20:48 GMT

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