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: <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:55:06 -0600
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, pjenkins@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568AE.004FDC28.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



Satisfying this requirement through the source view is not what we
intended. I think what Phill is pushing for is for more clarity.

Perhaps the correct solution is to render all information except attributes
in the format the browser was designed for as a priority one.

As a priority 1 or 2 provide access to everything else and to state in the
techniques that this is satisified through providing access to this content
by rendering the source document in an accessible manner.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost


Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> on 03/25/2000 02:52:49 PM

To:   Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc:   Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Question about access to ALL content - UAAG 2.1 P1




Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> I don't think that it is accesible - I think you are understimating the
> difficulty many people have in understanding a arkup language - both
those
> with cognitive disabilities and many others. And in any case the solution
> will only really work for relatively simple markup languages - although
it is
> possible to learn postscript or RF as well as HTML there are not many
people
> who do it. Any reasonably complex XML language can become
incomprehensible
> fairly quickly, and users should not be expected to read the language
> (otherwise why bother with a user agent that interprets it in the first
> place).

So what are our options?

1) Render the content by ignoring all markup. This may cause
   confusion as well since all structure is lost.

2) Render alternative content (or primary content for that matter)
   according to the rendering instructions of the markup language.
   This won't work for HTML or XML applications.

3) Require that the user agent implement a default style sheet
   for any markup language it supports. What should that style sheet
   be? We don't have a standard one for XML applications. One that comes
   to mind will present the content according to the structure of the
   document, which takes us back to the source view.

4) Require that the author supply a style sheet for all types of
content.
   I don't think this helps either the author or the user.

My fear is that we are going to try to define a line for what is
considered
accessible rendering. How do you determine that a user agent (even
a mainstream browser) has rendered content above that line? Where do you
draw that line?

I think it does make sense to say that the *minimal* requirement
is to make the document source available. (I can't think of anything
less than that, hence minimal).

Where do you draw the line after the minimal requirement?

 - Ian

> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
>   Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>   >
>   > 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.
>
>   I think it minimally satisfies the requirement of making content
>   available. We include no specifics about how content must be rendered
>   (e.g., that alt content for an image be made available inline, in the
>   same geometric area as an image, a click away from the image, in
>   a tool tip, etc.). I wouldn't expect a user to have to read through
>   the encoding of a raster graphic. However, I think that providing
>   text in a view, even if it's surrounded by markup tags, allows users
>   access to that information and thus minimally satisfies the
>   requirement of making (text) content available. I agree that
>   not all attribute values are useful, but since we don't specify
>   that only those for humans need to be available to the user (since
>   it may not be specified clearly in the markup language which are
>   for humans and which are machines), I think it's "safest" to ensure
>   that they are all available.
> [snip]

--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 429-8586
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Sunday, 26 March 2000 09:32:38 GMT

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