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

Re: IMPORTANT: Removing proposed checkpoint on synchronization

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:40:31 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000510112417.00d0a160@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I am not sure the synchronization should be a requirement for satisfying a 
checkpoint, since there may be techniques that do not require 
synchronization that satisfy a particular checkpoint.  For example if a 
user is typing to find out attribute information for a particular element, 
based on the requirements of checkpoint 2.1.  A source view would provide 
the information, a source view that is synchronized with an element a user 
has selected would be probably be better, but a view of only the current 
attributes for a particular element would be the best solution in this 
case.  So the best technique to satisfy this user need would not require 
synchronization of a source view.

The group felt that synchronization is a priority 2 issue [1] and I think 
we should strongly encourage its use in the places it makes sense.  But I 
don't think we have any situations where if there is not synchronizations, 
somebody can't access information.

Jon

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/05/wai-ua-telecon-20000502.html


At 12:06 PM 5/10/00 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>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

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, 10 May 2000 12:40:46 GMT

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