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

Re: Proposal for Checkpoint 2.1

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:53:40 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000502092251.00cd4810@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
I propose the following checkpoints and questions for discussion at today's 
telecon for improving checkpoint 2.1:

====================
Checkpoint 2.1a Ensure that the user has access to all content.  [Priority 1]

Note on 2.1a:
1) The combination of views offered by a user agent must provide access to 
all author supplied resources.  A source view is typically one of the views 
offered by many user agents, but is not a requirement for satisfying this 
checkpoint if resource information is available through the combination of 
other views offered by the user agent.

2) When a users change the default rendering configuration of a viewport 
(colors, style sheets, font size and style...) the viewport must provide 
access to the entire content of the view.  For example, in a graphical user 
agent this may require the adding of scroll bars to the viewport so the 
entire view can be rendered through the view port.

=================
Checkpoint 2.1b Make available alternative equivalents to primary content 
in all views where alternative equivalents are not rendered by default. 
[Priority 1]

Note: For example, substituting the ALT text associated with an image 
and/or rendering a link to the LONGDESC resource of an image for the 
original image.

=================
Checkpoint 2.1c Provide synchronized views of content. [Priority 2]

Note: If a user agent provides more than one view of content, allow the 
user to synchronize the views.  For example, when an element is selected in 
one view and the user switches to another view, like a source or a DOM tree 
view of the resource, the portion of the resource selected in the original 
view is also selected in the source or DOM tree view.

QUESTIONS: Should this be a checkpoint or a just a technique technique?  Is 
this an accessibility issue?
SPECIAL CASE QUESTION: What about content generated by scripts, there may 
be no easy identification of the information in a source view.

=================
Checkpoint 2.1d Provide access to only the attributes of a selected 
element. [Priority 3]

Note: In some cases the user needs access to the attributes of a selected 
element to determine the purpose or relationship of the element to other 
elements in a resource.

This is priority 3 since it is a convenience function.  The information 
would be required to be available through the user interface in 2.1a and 
partially supported in 2.1c.  AG and JW have said this is a common 
technique for people with disabilities to understand the content of an XML 
document.

QUESTIONS: Is this too specific of a checkpoint?  Does it solve an 
accessibility problem?


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 Tuesday, 2 May 2000 10:53:44 GMT

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