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

Re: AGENDA: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 19 April 2000

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0004191718320.12861-100000@tux.w3.org>
I think to minimise the burden we should point out in the techniqeus that in
general it is easier to implement this by making available everything through
the user interface. It does also depend on the languages supported by the
user agent - in some cases the range of information is so strictly tied that
it may be simpler not ot.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Al Gilman wrote:

  At 10:21 AM 2000-04-18 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
  >WAI UA Telecon for April 19th, 2000
  >
  >    2.Issue #PR207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
  >      http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
  >
  >      Notes:
  >
  >           A. Consensus on access to all human readible content through the 
  >user interface
  >
  >           B. Consensus on access to all alternative equivalents through 
  >the user interface
  >
  >           C. Currently the group has identified the primary use for access 
  >to machine readible
  >           content through the user interface is for repair purposes. The 
  >following items
  >           summarize the chairs view of the issue:
  >              C.1 We have previously removed other repair related 
  >checkpoints (linearization
  >                of tables, etc..). The only one left is Checkpoint 2.3.
  >              C.2 Examples sited affect people with disabilities the same 
  >as people without
  >                disabilities. Markup that does not conform to WCAG.
  >              C.3 Examples sited require an expert knowledge of markup for 
  >repair (small
  >                number of people with skill and motivation)
  >              C.4 Examples sited do not guarantee access to content only 
  >potential
  >              C.5 This would be a new requirement and may require stepping 
  >back to a
  >                previous stage in the recommendation process
  
  The problem with this analysis is simply this:  The formats don't give you
  a machine-implemetable way to separate case A from case C.  The only way
  the user agent can give access to all human-comprehensible information is
  to give structured (not all at once) access to the text values of all
  attributes.  It's easier to do that than to try to filter on attribute.
  
  I realize that my view is colored by working most intensively with the
  talking book and supercomputing applications, but basic tree walking and
  property inspection is one small body of code for all nodes in the DOM
  tree.  It takes more code to restrict it than to do it all.
  
  In order to minimize the burden on the User Agent, we need to lose the
  distinction between A and C which is not supported in the formats.
  
  Al
  
  
  
  

--
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 Wednesday, 19 April 2000 17:19:55 GMT

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