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

Re: IMPORTANT: Removing proposed checkpoint on synchronization

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:06:08 -0400
Message-ID: <391988F0.E0FF857E@w3.org>
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
David Poehlman wrote:
> 
> This is fine as long as we captured the needed synchronizations in minimum
> requirements or notes.

I don't believe that synchronization is a minimum requirement. I think
it's
an important technique for facilitating navigation between related
views.
But I for the reasons listed, I don't think that all related views
should be 
synchronized. I don't think that we can just say "allow the user
to synchronize related views" because we don't know what the semantics
of
those views will be (we don't require any but the outline view) and
there
are other unknowns about what synchronization would mean in some cases. 

 - Ian
 
> Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > Based on Ian's analysis [1] of the problems of including a synchronization
> > checkpoint I recommend that we reverse our decision to include a checkpoint
> > on synchronization.  I base this on the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. The group has identified a couple situations where synchronization is
> > useful, but there are other situations where a user may not want
> > synchronization of views or synchronized views may impede
> > accessibility.  This requirement therefore needs to be further developed to
> > determine when synchronization is or is not appropriate.  My feeling is
> > that these would be in situations covered by current checkpoints (i.e.
> > outline views, source views...)
> >
> > 2. This is a new requirement and it may trigger the document to return to a
> > previous stage in the process, delaying publication as a recommendation and
> > taking time from resolving other issues.
> >
> > 3. We have and can include in additional techniques for the situations the
> > group has identified where synchronized views make sense.  The techniques
> > will encourage developers to use synchronization in satisfying the
> > associated checkpoints.  Therefore we are not abandoning the need for
> > synchronization of some views, but making them part of satisfying other
> > checkpoints.
> >
> > Please respond to this e-mail either in favor or in opposition to this
> > resolution.  If there is opposition to the proposal I will include this
> > issue in the next available telecon.  No response to this issue will result
> > in my assuming that you support the proposal.  But I would rather have
> > members explicitly state their support or opposition to this proposal to
> > the list.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jon
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0300.html
> > 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
> 
> --
> Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
> ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
> http://poehlman.clark.net
> mailto:poehlman@clark.net
> voice 301-949-7599
> end sig.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2000 12:06:16 GMT

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