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

Re: Second look at checkpoint 4.7

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 17:30:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: schwer@us.ibm.com
cc: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004071724130.10134-100000@tux.w3.org>
The requirement to provide for positioning is essentialy the ability to
implement the positioning pieces of CSS, including user style sheets.

This has been demonstrated as possible a number of times. It relies on
specifications that were endorsed by the membership two years ago.

The User Agent guidelines describe a priority scheme which is based
(solely) on the necessity for users of a particular feature. Development
burden is not an input factor for the things people need to be able to use
the web.

I also reject the argument that if nobody has done something there is a good
reason not to do it. Nobody had implemented HTML 12 years ago, although all
the ideas had already been around for decades, and was technically feasible.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  
  Because this is an undo burden on application developers. There is a great
  number of requirements in our user agent guidelines. My concern is that if
  we place an unrealistic burden on developers that we have difficulty
  gaining compliance. Also, if we are too demanding then we will be ignored.
  I would prefer to have this first round of User Agent guidelines accepted
  and implemented ASAP and to have the developers feel good about having done
  it.
  
  If nobody has done this particular requirement at all there is obviously a
  reason for not doing it. My guess is that it was too difficult to implement
  and that the payback was inadequate.
  
  Rich
  
  
  Rich Schwerdtfeger
  Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
  EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
  
  "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
  I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
  Frost
  
  
  menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 04/07/2000 09:48:24 AM
  
  To:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
  cc:
  Subject:  Re: Second look at checkpoint 4.7
  
  
  
  i'm unclear why we should wait for a reference implementation
  and i'd also vote to leave the priority as is (e.g. P1)
  
  
  At 7:29 PM 4/6/00, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:
  >Checkpoint 4.7 "allow the user to configure the position
  >of...captions..." should be a priority 2 until a reference
  >implementation is available.
  >
  >Rich
  >
  >Rich Schwerdtfeger
  >Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
  >EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
  >
  >"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
  >I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
  >Frost
  
  
  
  
  

--
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 Friday, 7 April 2000 17:31:00 GMT

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