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

Re: T.V. Raman review of last call UAGL.

From: T. V. Raman <ramantv@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <14404.31227.882670.373918@localhost.earthlink.net>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, ramantv@earthlink.net
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> writes:

    Ian> Ian Jacobs wrote:
    >> 
    >> "T. V. Raman" wrote:
> >
> > Attached is my review of the UA guidelines.
> > The document looks very good --most of my comments are minor
> > editorial nits.
> > Hope this is useful--
> > and if necessary, feel free to forward this to the whole
> > list.
> 
> I've put up T.V.'s comments at [1].
> 
> Thank you T.V.,
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/11/raman-uagl-comments.html

    Ian> My comments below:

    >> T. V. Raman:Comments On UA Guidelines
    >> 
> Section 1
> 
> I'm a little confused by the usage of words like must in the 
> introduction section of the document. For example,
> here is a specific example: 
> 
>       Communication through standard interfaces is particularly important for
>       graphical desktop
>       browsers, which must make information available to assistive technologies. 
> 
> Do you really intend must to mean need to in the above? Stylistically
> (and perhaps even grammatically) I'd
> nuke the comma and change which to that in addition to 
> changing must to need to. 

    Ian> I think the requirement is stronger than what you
    Ian> are suggesting.  Graphical desktop browsers are, in
    Ian> fact, required by these guidelines to make
    Ian> information available to ATs. It's a Priority 1
    Ian> requirement (checkpoints 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, and 5.6),

Ian --I understand that graphical desktop browsers 
*must* be accessible.

However, in the context of the introduction section of the
UA Guidelines it still comes out to me as being a bit out of
place.
I think the reason for this is that the "must be accessible"
occurs as a subordinate clause in the sentence in question
i.e.
it is saying something like 
"do A because B"
--where B== "must be accessible"
--this is why it bothered me.

If "must be accessible" is a priority 1 requirement,
then I suggest rephrasing the sentence in question as 
two sentences in the following sequence 
B =="graphical browsers must be accessible"
for achieving B do A


    Ian> hence "must".


    >> Also, the following
    >> statement --which appears numerous times-- makes no sense to me: 
> 
>       o Links to definitions are highlighted through the use of style sheets. 
> 
> The offending phrase is through the use of style sheets. The user reading the document can tell that
> something is highlighted --how does one know (or why should one care) that it is done through the use of
> stylesheets? 

    Ian> Links to definitions are indicated graphically with
    Ian> green, italic text by default. The idea was to
    Ian> allow users to specify their own style preferences
    Ian> for that class of links if desired. We try to
    Ian> expose the use of style sheets for this purpose
    Ian> without going so far as to say
    Ian> "class="dfn-instance") Note that we also use:
    Ian> rel="glossary" and title="Definition of XYZ" in the
    Ian> link, so there's no shortage of information.

I understand all that --however I still maintain that 
reading "we highlight x by using stylesheets"
is distracting and confusing in the prose.

 
    >> 5.6
    >> 
>       User agents should export these interfaces using available operating system conventions. Note.
>       The DOM Level 1 specification states that "DOM applications may provide additional interfaces
>       and objects not found in this specification and still be considered DOM compliant." 
> 
> Why should the operating system be involved in the DOM? 

    Ian> Because the DOM doesn't specify how the interfaces
    Ian> it specifies are actually exported for use. For
    Ian> example, on a Windows platform, COM or CORBA may be
    Ian> the conventional ways of getting at the DOM
    Ian> interfaces.

I dont know. Still smells of entangling things into the OS
that dont belong there.
    >> Also, the note that is tacked on to the sentence in
    >> question looks out of context. 

    Ian> Perhaps the note belongs in the techniques
    Ian> document. The question that motivated the Note was:
    Ian> Is it possible to conform to the DOM while doing
    Ian> more than what the DOM specifies? The answer is
    Ian> yes.


    Ian>  - Ian

    Ian> -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)
    Ian> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel/Fax: +1 212
    Ian> 684-1814 Cell: +1 917 450-8783

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

      
Email:  raman@cs.cornell.edu
WWW:    http://cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/             
PGP:    http://cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/raman.asc 
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 20:30:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:25 UTC