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

Re: Part II: Issues about UA Guidelines raised during MAC IE evaluation

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 08:42:26 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000718081616.012b70b8@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, tantek@cs.stanford.edu
Responses in JRG:


>ISSUES
>
>Issue 1) Checkpoint 8.8 reads: Implement selection, content focus,
>          and user interface focus mechanisms. Implement them according
>          to system conventions per checkpoint 5.8.
>
>   Proposal: Add a clarification that this checkpoint is about the
>   semantics of these mechanisms (selection, focus) and not their
>presentation.
>   Their presentation is covered in checkpoint 8.9.

JRG: I agree


>Issue 2) The definition of "recognize" needs review. I don't have a
>proposal
>   right now.

JRG: Our use of recognize seems to also mean "interpret", if that helps 
with a definition

>Issue 3) Define set of explicit submit controls for HTML
>   Checkpoint 11.2 reads: Allow configuration so the user is
>   prompted to confirm any form submission not caused by explicit
>   activation of a form submit control.
>
>   Proposal: Add to the Note following the checkpoint that in HTML 4,
>   the only explicit controls are INPUT type="submit" and type="image",
>   and BUTTON type="submit".

JRG: Yes I think this would help clarify the HTML 4 case.  In the case of 
scripting though the user agent will also know that the script is 
requesting a new document using the "location" property (NN) or method with 
3 types of methods (IE) of the windows object.  In this case the user agent 
does not know if this  function was called as part of an explicit user 
request or if the script is generating the page change without explicit 
user notification.  The script writer currrently would need to design there 
code for only explicit user activiation.

>Issue 4) Change percentage back to proportion.
>   Checkpoints 9.4 and 9.5 used to say "proportion" and now they
>   say "percentage". I propose that was return to "proportion". For
>   example, saying that 1 Mbyte of 10 Mbytes has been transferred
>   is just as useful as saying 10% has been transferred, and it is also
>   gives size information.
>
>   Proposal:
>    a) Change "percentage" back to "proportion"
>    b) Give two examples of indicating proportion: percentage and "X of
>total Y".

JRG: Seems reasonable to me.

>Issue 5) Definition of "stalled". Checkpoint 9.4 reads:
>
>    9.4 When transferring content (e.g., a document, image, audio, video,
>        etc.) indicate what percentage of the content has been
>transferred
>        and whether the transfer has stalled.
>
>    Issue: What is the definition of "stalled"? What is the length of
>time
>    before the transfer should be considered stalled.
>
>    Proposal: Specify that user agents should refer to specifications
>    of underlying protocols (e.g., tcp/ip) that may specify timeout
>parameters.
>    I am not familiar with these specifications, so any advice (notably
>URIs)
>    would be appreciated.

JRG: The user agent will typically issue a dialog box warning or render a 
web page if access to the resource is not available.  This would seem to 
suffice for me.

>Issue 6) Does relative position of the viewport include horizontal
>position?
>
>    Proposal: Yes. In fact, the dimensions depend on the viewport. An
>audio
>    viewport would not (I believe) have this issue since the output is
>one
>    dimensional.

JRG: I I think horizontal is very important for people with visual 
impairements.  Many times they increase font size and information formatted 
in table columns disappears off the right hand side of the screen.  Many 
users don't know the information is there and the horizontal scroll bars 
are important to give people information.

>Issue 7) General advice about implementation of optional features of a
>    specification.
>
>    Proposed: Add the following statement to the spec (as a Note to
>    either to checkpoint 6.1 or 6.2):
>
>       "Developers should not implement an optional feature of
>        a specification if that feature may pose accessibility
>        problems and if the user cannot turn off the feature
>        in the user agent."

JRG: It seems reasonable to me, but what test do we give developers to know 
if it will affect accessibility?  Is there an example of an optional feature?


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
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 Tuesday, 18 July 2000 09:41:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT