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

FW: Proposal to fix (persistent) problem with priority of check point 6.1

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:38:41 -0400
To: "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-id: <B49B36B1086DD41187DC000077893CFB8B43C6@rosnt46.ets.org>

Thanks. It seems OK.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 10:20 AM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: 'Jon Gunderson'; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal to fix (persistent) problem with priority of
> checkpoint 6.1
> 
> 
> "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > 
> > In order to comment on the adequacy of this change, I need a little
> > clarification.
> > 
> > Is it correct that the document and recent working group 
> agreements do _not_
> > require writing data back to the DOM? 
> 
> Only for those changes to the document object possible 
> through the user
> interface.
> 
> > We allow user agents to make whatever
> > repair they do _during load_ without being impinged upon by 
> our guidelines.
> > We have had a lot of discussion about repair functions (and 
> even more may be
> > due), but is it correct that we have not agreed to any 
> post-load repair
> > function that writes back to the DOM?
> 
> No. We haven't said that the user agent can't initiate repairs. We've
> said
> that the user agent doesn't need to allow expose writing 
> through an API
> in the general case (this would make the UA an authoring 
> tool). We used
> to have such a requirement but narrowed its scope to "those changes
> already
> available through the UA's UI."
>  
> > I do want to submit the idea that if we do require 
> post-load repair that
> > writes to the DOM, then those actions constitute authoring, 
> making the user
> > agent an authoring tool and therefore making the ATAG 1.0 
> document relevant.
> 
> Given my comment above, I don't think that the authoring requirements
> are
> relevant since the intention is not to require real authoring through
> either
> the UI or an API.
> 
>  - Ian
>  
> > However, if that occurs, I can't see all of ATAG 
> (especially all three
> > priority levels) being relevant. I can see all three levels 
> of WCAG 1.0 as
> > being relevant for 6.1
> > 
> > With this caveat, the change seems OK.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jon Gunderson [mailto:jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:21 AM
> > > To: Ian Jacobs; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Proposal to fix (persistent) problem with priority of
> > > checkpoint 6.1
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian,
> > > The change seems reasonable to me.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > > At 07:13 AM 9/28/2000 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >In the 1 September UAAG 1.0 [1], checkpoint 6.1 is P1 and reads:
> > > >
> > > >   Implement the accessibility features of all supported
> > > specifications
> > > >   (markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages,
> > > >   graphics formats, etc.). Accessibility features are those
> > > identified
> > > >   in the specification and those features of the specification
> > > >   that support requirements of the "Web Content Accessibility
> > > >   Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10], the "Authoring Tool Accessibility
> > > >   Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10], and the current document. 
> [Priority 1]
> > > >
> > > >The issue of whether this checkpoint should have a 
> relative priority
> > > >has already been raised (number 111 [2]), and at the Princeton
> > > >face-to-face, we resolved to leave it a P1 checkpoint [3]. Eric
> > > >has recently broached the topic again [4], asking:
> > > >
> > > >    "Is it a Priority 1 UAAG requirement to ensure that
> > > >     features that support all three_ WCAG and ATAG priority
> > > >     levels are implemented?"
> > > >
> > > >In fact, I see a bug in the UAAG 1.0 spec since it refers
> > > >at a P1 level to "those features of the specifcation that support
> > > >the requirements of ... the current document") and not all
> > > >the requirements are P1.
> > > >
> > > >If I recall, the strongest argument against a relative priority
> > > >for this checkpoint was that even if a requirement is P3 in WCAG,
> > > >it is important for user agents to implement such 
> features, otherwise
> > > >there is no pressure to provide the support author's 
> need. I believe
> > > >the same argument may be made for ATAG requirements that refer to
> > > >content, but not necessarily those that refer to user interface.
> > > >
> > > >PROPOSED FIX:
> > > >
> > > >   - Delete "and the current document" from 6.1. Thus, to conform
> > > >     to this document, you must satisfy the checkpoints of
> > > this document
> > > >     and relevant requirements of other documents at a P1 level
> > > >
> > > >   - Delete the reference to ATAG 1.0 (since content requirements
> > > >     covered by WCAG and  user interface requirements
> > > covered by UAAG).
> > > >
> > > >   - Clearly state that we mean *all* requirements of WCAG
> > > 1.0 (P1, P2,
> > > >and P3).
> > > >
> > > ><NEW>
> > > >   Implement the accessibility features of all supported
> > > specifications
> > > >   (markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages,
> > > >   graphics formats, etc.). Accessibility features are those
> > > identified
> > > >   in the specification and those features of the specification
> > > >   that support requirements of the "Web Content Accessibility
> > > >   Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10] [Priority 1]
> > > ></NEW>
> > > >
> > > >  - Ian
> > > >
> > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000901/
> > > >[2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111
> > > >[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/12/ftf-19991210#issue-111
> > > >[4]
> > > 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0397.html
> > >
> > >--
> > >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > >Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> > >Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >
> > 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
> >
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 11:55:56 GMT

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