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

proposed changes by Ian 1, 2, and 11

From: <thatch@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:19:01 -0500
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256817.000D2D5E.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>


Ian, a number of checkpoints have come in under your proposal
about which I have very serious concerns. I feel like new issues have
popped up like mushrooms encouraged by the Seattle weather.

Several issues below.

quote. 1.5 Ensure that information output as part of operating the
user agent is available through ouput device APIs implemented
by the user agent. [Priority 1]  endquote.

This is too broad-banned (read impossible) to even make sense.
The new love of API's is a flaw in my opinion. 1.5 could be
read as a total no-brainer. What could any user agent output not
through output device API's?

Quote. 11.1 Document the default input configuration for the keyboard,
graphical user interface, voice commands, etc. [Priority 1]  endquote.

I have trouble parsing 11.1. Is it output configuration for the gui, or
does this ask to document the gui? This is not an accessibility issue.
Where and why did this arrise. It is important to know accessibility
features of the UA, but "document the gui?"

quote. 11.2 Provide information to the user about the current input
configuration for the keyboard, graphical user interface, voice
commands, etc. [Priority 1]
The current configuration is the result of a cascade of author-specified
user interface information   (e.g., "accesskey" or "tabindex" in HTML),
browser defaults, and user-modified settings.  endquote.

Here is a P1 requirement based on what everybody agreed was a
broken requirement of access key. There is *** No *** reason to
document tab index. This is another checkpoint from left field.

quote. 11.3 Allow the user to control the input configuration for standard
input devices, including the keyboard, graphical user interface, voice
commands, etc. "One stroke" access should be possible, for example
a single key stroke, voice command, or button to activate an important
functionality. [Priority 2]  endquote.

Talk about mushrooms. Where in heavens name did this come from?
If I understand it, it is very hard. No apps do it. How can you require P1
that user agents do it. I think it means that a user can change Ctrl+P for
print to Alt+F4. These are controls that should *not* be given the UA
user.

Quite. 11.4 Use system conventions to provide information to the user
about the current input configuration for the keyboard, graphical user
interface, voice commands, etc. [Priority 2]
For example, on some platforms, if a functionality is available from a
menu, the letter of the key that will activate that functionality is
underlined.
endquote.

The whole concept of "current input configuration," trying to generalize
a broken concept, gives me great pain. I know we don't really care about
my pain. But darn it, I thought at the face to face we agreed not
to focus on accesskey.

Quote. 11.5 Avoid default keyboard, graphical user interface, voice,
or other input configurations that interfere with or deviate from system
conventions. [Priority 2]  endquote.

This seems like a reasonable UI guideline, independent of accesskey,
why is it here.

Quote. 11.7 Provide default keyboard, graphical user interface, voice,
and other input configurations for frequently performed operations.
[Priority 3]   endquote.

This seems gratuitous. And then again, I don't understand it. Why here.



Jim Thatcher
IBM Special Needs Systems
www.ibm.com/sns
HPR Documentation page: http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/hprdoc.html
thatch@us.ibm.com
(512)838-0432


Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> on 10/25/99 08:04:42 PM

To:   w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  Proposed changes to Guidelines 1, 2, and 11 re: keyboard




Hello,

Please consider a proposal [1] to make changes to Guidelines 1, 2, and
11
based on Marja's comments [2] about Guideline 2 and Rich's comments
about
some checkpoints of Guideline 1.

At [1] you will find background information, motivation, list of
changes,
and the proposal itself (minus rationale text). Please note that in this
proposal, there are no new checkpoints. There are three fewer
priority 1 checkpoints.

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/10/g1g2-proposal
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0437.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999OctDec/0098.html
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 22:30:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:34 GMT