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

Re: Question about access to ALL content - UAAG 2.1 P1

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:33:00 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: pjenkins@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003251425391.14777-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't think that providing a source view solves the problem. It requires
the user to understand the markup language being used, which is not
necessarily the case, and has thus far been explicitly excluded as a
requirement on the user.

In addition, there are only some attributes which are actually content for
the user (title and alt are the main ones but I suspect there are a couple of
others somewhere). longdesc, most of the attributes for object, name, id, and
others are relevant to the User Agent but not directly to the user (except as
a repair strategy for dealing with user agents that don't implement the
relevant specifications) and exposing this information is not required, nor
in many cases very helpful.

In general having the ability to render the source is only relevant to "power
users" who are able to interpret (and therefore write) the markup language,
which is a small subset of those who read content. With the advent of decent
authoring tools this will in fact diminish - how many people can read RTF or
Word binary format?

cheers

Charles McCN


  pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
  > 
  > After reading the user agent proposed rec guidelines [1] document and the
  > associated techniques [2], I have a question about how to interpret the
  > priority 1 checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that the user has access to all content
  > ... The techniques [2] give examples about AMAYA's ability to show the
  > attributes of an element - which is nice,  but more like what I would
  > expect from an editing tool and environment than what I would expect from a
  > user agent that majors in rendering content.  But my question is;  -  would
  > the current technique of rendering the source view of the content meet this
  > checkpoint?  If not, it needs to be explicitly stated.  If it would be OK,
  > then the instances for which it would be O.K. need to be stated in the
  > techniques.
then On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
  
  I believe that, while not an ideal solution, a source view would meet
  this
  requirement. A navigable source view would be better, but still forces
  people
  to read the markup, which is not very desirable.
   
[more, snipped]
Received on Saturday, 25 March 2000 14:33:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:52 GMT