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

Re: Preparation for 27 April teleconference [Was Re: AGENDA: W3C WAI User Agent Telecon 27 April 2000]

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:58:42 -0500
Message-Id: <200004271555.LAA572391@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
At 09:55 PM 2000-04-26 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Al Gilman wrote:
>> At 10:18 PM 2000-04-25 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> >   Proposal:
>> >
>> >   1) Leave 2.1 checkpoint text the same.
>> >      ("Make available all content, including equivalent
>> >        alternatives for content.")
>> >   2) Require that for content known by specification to
>> >      be for users (including information in style sheets),
>> >      that a document source view does not suffice.
>> "What is for display" is view-specific.  Not document-information-generic.
>> "What is for the user" is not a valid concept in the Universal Access
>> architecture.  It is a residue of "view chauvenism;" someone's assumption
>> as to what view the user is using.  All the properties are informative, and
>> may be exposed in the over-the-wire encoding as text or (where available)
>> in a friendlier transform of that encoding.
>Similarly, in another email [1] you write:
>   "There is no fundamental semantic difference between what is
>    called data vs. metadata.  They both play the same role as 
>    bearers of information  Semantically, it is all just
>    one class of data.  This is a little-understood fact of 
>    information science."
>I think that we should focus on one particular view of
>the data: the author's view of what pieces of content are
>equivalent. The author marks up these pieces in a way that
>allows user agents to recognize the pieces as equivalent. I think
>the Working Group wants those equivalents to be easily 
>interchangeable or reachable in the same view. 
>Proposal (both P1):
>2.1.a Provide easy access to all equivalents.
> The equivalents could be rendered in the same viewport, through
> tool tips, by querying selected elements for attribute values,
> etc. A document source view would not meet this requirement since
> it would not be easy for most users. I don't think that it should
> be a requirement that all equivalents be rendered in the same
> viewport since that may not help some users, and some users may
> want more than one of the equivalents rendered at a given moment.
> Again, it's understood here that an "equivalent" is one that
> the user agent can recognize. It's also understood that this
> means "access through the UI" (which will be stated elsewhere).

I know you are working hard to make this clear, but I don't really
understand, yet.

What is the objective that you are working toward?  

I am wondering if this objective fits under Guideline 2.  I see Guideline
2. as addressing coverage requirements, the accessibility of information
not as avoiding interface failure modes, but more primitively in terms of
"there has to be some state of the view configuration which gets to
everything in the document."  This requirement is intentionally vague about
what the various views are.

While Guideline 2. could be considered to come under the topic of view
control, it does not contain the general view control topic in itself.  I
am wondering if 2.1.a as you have stated it doesn't constitute "topic
creep" as regards Guideline 2.

The concerns with equivalents may be better considered as specific
constraints on what kinds of views must be available.  For  example, one
could discuss the candidate requirement 

Views orthogonal to equivalents:

For each view presenting one from a group of equivalents, there must be an
equivalent view available with each of the equivalent alternatives
substituted in what is otherwise the same collection of information as in
the original view.


>2.1.b Provide access to all content.
> A document source view would meet this requirement, though
> a structured navigation view would be better. All content
> need not be available in one view (though that's the easiest to
> do). All content need not be available in every view.
>Am I missing any important pieces?
> - Ian
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0210.html
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 11:53:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:26 UTC