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

Re: Techniques for Checkpoint 5.5

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:52:03 -0500
Message-ID: <389093D3.E3C37389@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> Response is JRG2:
> At 01:02 PM 1/27/00 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >>
> >> Current techniques for 5.5:
> >>
> >> 1. @@This needs work and probably should be in the guidelines@@. The
> >> exchange of information between user agents must keep pace with changes in
> >> the content. It may be necessary to allow the user to configure the user
> >> agent to pause before changes to content or the user interface so that an
> >> assistive technology has time to react.
> >>
> >> JRG: Unless we have an example of how this would work I would like to see
> >> it removed.  We can add it to a future issues list for the document or
> >> forwarded to the PF group, but I know off no technical way for AT and UA to
> >> do this or how it would help assistive technology.  This has been a
> >> consistently difficult checkpoint for developers to understand and I think
> >> this type of techniques suggestion will only add to the confusion on what
> >> should be a simple checkpoint to understand.
> >
> >I disagree. I think the note indicates sufficiently that this concept
> >needs fleshing out.
> 
> JRG2: If a technique needs work at this point in the development of the
> techniques document I think it should be given to interested working group
> members as an action item for them to develop.  When the validity of the
> technique for accessibility is clearer to the working group it can then be
> added to the techniques document. Until that time I think putting in
> questionable techniques will cause unnecessary problems during the review
> process.  This would be the only technique I am aware of as marked as
> "needs work" if included.

IJ2: Up to now, techniques have not undergone explicit WG review before
being included in the techniques document. I don't disagree with a
policy where the WG would approve techniques before they are added,
but we don't have such a policy today. 

I marked it as "needs work" not because it's any less ripe than other
techniques, but because the ideas themselves are in discussion and
I wanted to mark for myself that we needed to continue to develop
these ideas.  I did not want to use the issues list before going to
CR.

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814 or 212 532-4767
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2000 13:52:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT