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

RE: Comments/questions about checkpoint 9.3 (configuration of event notification)

From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:14:12 -0700
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I don't think we can make any "requirements" to the AT vendors.  That's
beyond our scope.  We have to make sure that the UA has an accessible path
that meets the needs of the person with a disability, but we can't say that
that is the only way to gain access.

We can require a ramp to the door, but we can't keep people from climbing in
the windows.

Denis Anson

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 2:14 AM
To: Ian Jacobs
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments/questions about checkpoint 9.3 (configuration of
event notification)

I guess there is still an important issue of whether we require AT to access
through an API. (Rich, I'm fishing for comment here <grin/>). If not, then
producing the content through the UI is how the user is going to find out
what happened. I thought we had a seperate checkpoint that required taht,
the configuration was to allow the user to turn that off.

Charles MCN

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:


  In the 7 July Guidelines [1], checkpoint 9.3 (Priority 3) reads:

     Allow the user to configure notification preferences for
     common types of content and viewport changes.
        Note: For example, allow the user to choose to be notified
        (or not) that a script has been executed, that
        a new viewport has been opened, that a pulldown menu has
        been opened, that a new frame has received focus, etc.

  1) Since this checkpoint does not specify that it is about notification
     through an API (which is covered by checkpoint 5.5), our document
     says that this checkpoint refers to notification through the
     user interface.

  2) Looking back at the history of the checkpoint
     (checkpoint 10.2 was introduced in the 9 July 1999 draft [3]), I
     believe that originally this requirement was supposed to apply to
     notification through an API and notification through the UI.
     Refer to 30 June 1999 discussion [4]. We dropped filters
     on the API notification at some point since applications can
     filter out whatever they wish.

  3) If notification is to be provided through the UI, then by
     default all events would have to be indicated to the user.
     How would that work in practice? We have to address that
     question before we discuss how filtering will work.

  4) If we try to identify a minimal set of events that are
     "common types of content and viewport changes", what
     would be in that set? We could use the information
     in the Note after the checkpoint, but that list is
     short and two of them are covered by other checkpoints:

     a) a script has been executed
     b) a viewport has been opened (but control over viewport opening
        is covered by checkpoint 4.16).
     c) a pulldown menu has been opened.
     d) a new frame has received focus (but control of focus
        change is covered by checkpoint 4.15).

     I would note that checkpoint 1.5 already requires that messages
     from the UA have text equivalents in the UI.

  5) The techniques document [2] talks about frame techniques but mostly
     disabling notification of changes (on an element basis, for css
     and for changing animations. In short, we don't have many techniques
     explaining what events should trigger notifications, nor how that
     information could be communicated to the user (e.g., through the
     status bar).

  6) Who does notification through the UI benefit? For users with
     assistive technologies, we already require that all changes
     be sent through an API. What users using the UA's native
     UI benefit from notification of changes?

  I'm looking for answers to these questions to figure out what
  the minimal requirements for 9.3 are or whether we should delete it.
  I realize that notification is very important, but we should flesh
  this checkpoint out before we continue with it.

   - Ian

  [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000707/

  [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990709/
  [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0265.html
  Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
  Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
  Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2000 09:10:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:27 UTC