W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: source vs content vs rendered content: item #207

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 18:20:06 -0500 (EST)
To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
cc: Hans Riesebos <HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl>, "<" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004011812470.11714-100000@tux.w3.org>
According to my understaning, the content for a script-enabled browser (which
we do not require - should we? see below for further discussion) is as Hans
suggests, and the renderable content likewise (plus the fact that this is in
blue - there is no further semantic meaning defined, but it has been
emphasised in that way which is a distinction that needs to be made
available).

For a browser which does not support script, there is only the original
source available, and no renderable content (hence the WCAG requirement to
have alternative content for scripts, which would in this case form the
renderable content.

If there were alternative content for the script, then there would be two
sets of renderable content for a script-aware browser. In this particular
instance one could easily enough have them be exactly the same - a smart
browser could compare them, discover that, and not need to offer each version
of the same thing, but this seems unikely in the real world, and the
requirement would be to offer the user access to either renderable form.

This also clearly illustrates to me why access to source does not satisfy the
requirement - as a person who has programmed some in Javascript and a
reaasonable amount in other languages I can figure out what is going to
happen, but a person with no programing experience coul easily be at a
complete loss if all they were offered was the source, regardless of
disability. (I don't think not having learned programming, or even a markup
language, counts as a disability any more than not having learned latin.)

cheers

Charles McCN



On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Denis Anson wrote:

  Hans,
  
  The issue is whether displaying the javascript would be informative to the
  typical user.  I would argue that it would confuse more than enlighten, and
  hence doesn't meet the need of the typical user.
  
  Denis Anson
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
  Behalf Of Hans Riesebos
  Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 6:10 AM
  To: <
  Subject: source vs content vs rendered content: item #207
  
  
  I am sorry for missing the telecon. I miscalculated the time. In europe we
  went to daylight savings time.
  
  After reading the raw minutes, I am still confused on item #207.
  
  Can anyone tell me where I go wrong in my reasoning? Below I give an example
  of what I think is source (or 'original source'), what is rendered content
  and what is content (or 'current content' or maybe even 'current source').
  
  Here is just an example I found somewhere on the internet:
  
  This is some source
     <HTML>
     <HEAD>
     <SCRIPT>
         function displayPerson(color)
         {
             document.write("<FONT COLOR='"+color+"'>Name:"+this.Name
             +"<BR>Age:"+this.Age+"<BR>Country:"
             +this.Country+"</FONT>");
         }
         function Person(Name, Age, Country)
         {
             this.Name=Name;
             this.Age=Age;
             this.Country=Country;
             this.displayPerson=displayPerson;
         }
     </SCRIPT>
     </HEAD>
     <BODY>
     <SCRIPT>
         neighbor= new Person("John Smith", 34, "Switzerland");
         neighbor.displayPerson("blue";
     </SCRIPT>
     </BODY>
     </HTML>
  
  When "rendered" or executed, this will read from the screen (in blue text):
  So next is the rendered content
  
     Name:John Smith
     Age:34
     Country:Switzerland
  
  Which actually equals (what I consider to be the content):
  
     <HTML>
     <BODY>
     <P><FONT COLOR=blue>Name:John Smith<BR>
     Age:34<BR>
     Country:Switzerland </FONT></P>
     </BODY>
     </HTML>
  
  When I read the definition of what content is in the UAAG it does not
  conflict with my view, because it refers to 'document source' (where
  document refers to the DOM-document?).
  
  When I ask for the source-view in IE5 I get the 'original source', that (in
  my opinion) would not satisfy checkpoint 2.1. If on the other hand it would
  give me the 'current source' it would satisfy the checkpoint (see definition
  of 'content' in the UAAG).
  
  If the definition of content refers to 'original content', then programmatic
  control to the DOM will not give me the content and would not satisfy
  checkpoint 2.1!?
  
  Please enlighten me
  Hans Riesebos
  ALVA BV, The Netherlands
  HRiesebos@alva-bv.nl
  
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia 
Received on Saturday, 1 April 2000 18:20:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:03 GMT