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

Re: ERT techniques in UA guidelines?

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:11:53 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.20000412170933.00a96bb0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
We have some repair techniques like checkpoint 2.3 about when no
alternative equivalent is available.  Others can describe repair techniques
in the techniques document. 
Jon


At 09:17 AM 4/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>At 10:22 PM 2000-04-09 -0700, Dick Brown wrote:
>>
>>I have an action item from the ER group:
>>
>>>> Action DB take issue to UA - should they be considering ERT techniques in
>>their guidelines? have they already? include in techniques document?
>>
>>I don't have strong feelings that User Agents should employ ERT techniques,
>>but when the issue came up we agreed UA folks might be interested in hearing
>>about it.
>>
>
>AG::
>
>The header guessing algorithm from HTML 4 tables is a repair technique that
>I believe the UA group has endorsed.
>
>I wonder what the group's position would be on what a User Agent should do
>on processing a stylesheet that contains !important clauses and clearly
>identifies itself as CSS1.  Should the User Agent 'repair' this to let the
>user's !important rule?
>
>As we move forward to more general flavors of XML, I believe that we will
>want to move User Agent functionality to being triggered more by structure
>patterns and less by individual marks.
>
>So the idea that User Agents may properly be engaging in 'repair' is not to
>be summarily dismissed, I hope.  
>
>On the other hand, the User Agent Guidelines are in a very stable phase.
>Unless someone is aware of a repair that the guidelines have missed, that
>ERT has designed, and that is a serious flaw not to include, the action to
>take right now would seem to be to say that repair techniques may be cited
>in the User Agent Techniques in future and move on.
>
>As David Poehlman points out, most of the 'repair' agenda was left behind
>with the decision to focus on the minimum requirements for the base
>platform and defer consideration of AT techniques.
>
>Al
>
>>Gregory has some thoughts below.
>
>>
>>Dick Brown
>>Program Manager, Web Accessibility
>>Microsoft Corp.
>>http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: 	Gregory J. Rosmaita [mailto:unagi69@concentric.net] 
>>Sent:	Monday, April 03, 2000 11:09 AM
>>To:	Evaluation & Repair Interest Group
>>Cc:	Jon Gunderson; Ian Jacobs
>>Subject:	UA as an ERT tool (was Re: minutes from today's meeting)
>>
>>aloha, y'all!
>>in the minutes from this morning's telecon, it was stated:
>>quote:
>>DB you can consider UA's testing tools. in the future they may be doing
>>more.
>>LK the ideal: techniques part of authoring tools and browsers.  WL can we
>>suggest something to UA for UA's to perform validity checks for the user?
>>LK i don't think that has been part of the UA philosophy.
>>Action DB take issue to UA - should they be considering ERT techniques in 
>>their guidelines? have they already? include in techniques document?
>>unquote
>>the User Agent Working group has consistently taken the stance that User 
>>Agents are _not_ expected to fix invalid or inaccessible HTML-that 
>>burden has been placed squarely upon the author's shoulders, and the Web 
>>Content, Authoring Tool, and ERT documents are all intended to ensure that 
>>the content that is exposed to the user via a user agent is (a) valid and 
>>(b) accessible
>>that being said, a simple warning, such as that which Lynx issues when it 
>>encounters invalid HTML
>>quote
>>Warning! Bad HTML! Use -trace to diagnose
>>unquote
>>
>>would be a beneficial feature for a User Agent, but as far as expecting a
>>user agent to perform repairs or even an analysis of the page, isn't
>>something that the User Agent Guidelines currently address, nor is it
>>something that the WG expects as part of the functionality of a user agent
>>qua user agent...
>>a user agent that also functions as an editing tool, such as Amaya, however,
>>would be required to perform evaluation and repair, but only in editing
>>mode...
>>finally, Lynx can-by using the -trace command line switch-be used as 
>>a diagnostic tool-for more info, consult:
>>http://www.slcc.edu/lynx/release2-8-2/lynx2-8-2/lynx_help/Lynx_users_guide.h
>>tml
>>gregory.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>ACCOUNTABILITY, n.  The mother of caution.
>>* Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Gregory J. Rosmaita      <unagi69@concentric.net>
>>Camera Obscura           <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
>>VICUG NYC                <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
>>Read 'Em & Speak         <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 18:12:04 GMT

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