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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:13:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
cc: "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009281211110.29106-100000@tux.w3.org>
As a side comment, if the tool does become an authoring tool (I guess that as
well as changing the DOM it really needs to have a mechanism for putting the
changed DOM back onto the web somewhere) then yes, ATAG 1.0 does apply. But
that already exists, and need not take up space in the UA guidelines.

Cheers

Charles

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Hansen, Eric wrote:

  
  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
  > >
  > >
  
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 12:13:59 GMT

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