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

RE: Proposal to reconsider resolution to issue 420

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:00:41 -0500
Message-Id: <200012301956.OAA259083@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
Cc: "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 10:24 AM 2000-12-30 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Seems reasonable...
>
>(But raises a little warning bell in my head  -what does it mean to  be
>marked up to indicate something will cost money? does it means conforms to
>the W3C micropayments draft? Or conforrms to some other XML language for
>identifying transactions? or conforms to the published house style of some
>commerce outfit, who produce metadat that identifies every link that costs
>money? I think we need implementation experience to answer this one - maybe
>we should ask the people who worked on commerce at W3C, and other people who
>are doing so...)
>

The general approach we have followed here is that the basic responsibility of
the User Agent is to act responsibly with respect to what it can recognize in
the received data by applying the rules of the format.

So "marked up to indicate" here is synonymous with "where the UA has
recognized
that activation will [likely] incur a fee."  The requirement to recognize this
property where the definition of the format supports such recognition is
covered in Checkpoint 6.2 to do things and do them right.

Al

>cheers
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Hansen, Eric wrote:
>
>  Seems reasonable...
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Ian Jacobs [<mailto:ij@w3.org%5D>mailto:ij@w3.org]
>  > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 3:14 PM
>  > To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>  > Subject: Proposal to reconsider resolution to issue 420
>  >
>  >
>  > Hello,
>  >
>  > At the 20 December teleconference [1], we resolved for issue 420 [2]
>  > not to make any change to checkpoint 8.3 regarding prompting before
>  > following a fee link. This is a request to reconsider that decision.
>  >
>  > In the 23 October draft [3], the checkpoint reads:
>  >
>  >   8.3 Render in a distinct style those links that have been
>  >       marked up to indicate that following them will involve a
>  >       fee and allow the user to configure this style.
>  >       For graphical viewports, offer at least three
>  >       rendering options, including colors and fonts.
>  >       Allow the user to select from among the range of system
>  >       colors and fonts.
>  >
>  > Here's why I think the decision should be reconsidered:
>  >
>  >  - We argued that since this is not a pervasive problem
>  >    today on the Web in terms of *user agent responsibilities*,
>  >    it was not urgent to address with a prompting requirement
>  >    in UAAG 1.0.
>  >
>  >  - However, this is done today using plug-ins. In fact,
>  >    the 25 August 1999 Micropayments Working Draft [4] states:
>  >
>  >     <BLOCKQUOTE>
>  >     For current browsers, embedding information in HTML
>  >     pages MUST be done using a Per Fee Link Handler, which
>  >     MUST  be a plug-in or JAVA Applet.
>  >     </BLOCKQUOTE>
>  >
>  >  - 8.3 and 8.X (proposed below) don't apply for formats
>  >    that don't allow authors to mark up fee links.
>  >    "Fee link" is a role of content that cannot be recognized
>  >    in HTML, for example. Thus, 8.3 and 8.x do not impose
>  >    additional burdens on existing browsers.
>  >
>  >  - If feel links are not used widely today, and browsers
>  >    don't yet implement these features, we should be ahead of
>  >    the curve and ensure that we require them to do the
>  >    right thing now. I recognize that we need implementation
>  >    experience to see whetherexisting plug-ins allow
>  >    configuration to prompt users before charging them.
>  >
>  >  - It is always possible to claim conformance with the
>  >    addition of a plug-in that supports fee links.
>  >
>  > Thus, after reflection, I support the reviewer's
>  > suggestion (which the WG agreed was a good idea) and
>  > believe that:
>  >
>  >  1) It's a P2 requirement to prevent activation of a link
>  >     that may involve a fee.
>  >
>  >  2) It's a P3 requirement to inform the user through style
>  >     that following a link may involve a fee.
>  >
>  > Therefore I propose:
>  >
>  >  1) Changing 8.3 to a P3 checkpoint.
>  >
>  >  2) Adding the following P2 checkpoint:
>  >
>  >   8.X Allow configuration so the user is prompted to confirm
>  >       the activation of any link that has been marked up to
>  >       indicate that following it will involve a fee.
>  >
>  > Comments:
>  >
>  >  a) Checkpoint 8.5 already allows the user to query links for
>  >     information about fees.
>  >
>  >  - Ian
>  >
>  > [1]
> 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html>http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html
>  [2]
<http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#420>http://se
rver.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#420
>  [3]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-
UAAG10-20001023/
>  [4]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-Micropayment-Markup-19990825>http://www.w3.org
/TR/1999/WD-Micropayment-Markup-19990825
>
>
>-- 
>Charles McCathieNevile    <mailto:charles@w3.org>mailto:charles@w3.org   
phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                     
<http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>until 6 January 2001 at:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France
>  
Received on Saturday, 30 December 2000 14:56:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT