W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2001

Status of Greg Lowney issues [Was: Responses to Greg Lowney issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:36:42 -0400
Message-ID: <3ACCAD2A.78D085EF@w3.org>
To: Greg Lowney <greglo@microsoft.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

I've reviewed Greg Lowney's comments [1] and my
responses to his comments [2]. Here is a summary
of how we have addressed (or not addressed) Greg's
issues. We addressed a number of them at the 29 March
2001 teleconference [3].

 - Ian

Checkpoint numbers adjusted for 4 April 2001 draft:
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010404/

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0538
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0549
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555

=========================================
Editorial still to do 
=========================================

I intend to incorporate these editorial and techniques changes into
the next draft (which will be the last call draft).

1) Issue 415: Fix circular definition of enabled element/activation.

   Status: Whoops! I forgot to fix this in the most recent draft.
   Action IJ: Fix definitions before going to last call.

2) Issue 440: Add Greg's list of additional 9.7 search requirements 
   to the techniques document.
   Action IJ: Add these before going to last call.

   Note: The WG has not chosen to include additional search
   requirements as part of the minimal requirements of checkpoint 9.7.

   Techniques:

   <GL>

   (2) Should add the option or mechanism to start search from the
   beginning of the document rather than from the current selection or
   focus. There is no easy way to do this in IE today. Or is there
   already a requirement to provide an easy way to move the "focus" or
   start of search to the beginning or end of the document.

   (3) Should provide distinct alerts for the three situations listed;
   the user should be able to easily tell whether they have searched
   all the content, or whether they merely reached the end of the
   document and now need to wrap to the beginning.

   (4) There are a lot of additional variations that could be included
   as priority 3. For example, should add the ability to search
   backwards through content, possibly as a priority 3
   checkpoint. That is part of forgiveness, allowing the user to avoid
   having to start over if they accidentally go one search too far.

   (5) If the user has not indicated a start position for the search,
   the search should start from the beginning of that portion in the
   viewport (as far as the user agent is concerned-it does not have to
   deal with whether portions of its window is obscured by other
   applications or operating systems windows).

   (6) Should ideally provide the option of searching through
   alternative representations (such as ALT text) and source (e.g. you
   know the page was found by a search engine looking for a specific
   term, but normal search cannot find it, it would be nice to have it
   inform you that it found the text in metadata or other non-rendered
   portions of the source.  This would be lower priority.
   </GL>

3) Add rationale to checkpoint 4.10 about configuration of
   distinct audio sources:

   <GL> 
   However, note that there are at least three good reasons for
   strongly recommending that all sounds are independently
   configurable: (1) sounds which are not synchronized may end up
   playing simultaneously, and (2) if the user cannot anticipate when
   a sound will play they cannot adjust the global volume control at
   appropriate times to affect this sound, and (3) it is extremely
   inconvenient for the user to have to frequently adjust global
   volume to accommodate sounds about to be played, especially when
   this leads them to frequently switch back and forth between
   different volume settings. 
   </GL>

=========================================
Working Group has adopted Greg's proposal
=========================================

1) Issue 393: Add requirement to G6 checkpoints that if no 
   standard API available, require some API. 
   [Originally about checkpoint 6.6]

   Status: The WG resolved to require publicly documented API
   at the 29 March teleconf.
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555

2) Issue 426: Checkpoint 11.4: Single-key requirement not clear.

   Status: This has been fixed in the 4 April draft. The minimal
   requirement is that the user must be able to specify single-key
   bindings for at least the required default set of functionalities
   (specified in checkpoint 11.5).

3) Issue 395: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: Don't say "activate placeholder".

   Status: Different language is employed in the 4 April draft:
   
      "allow the user to view the original author-supplied content
       associated with each placeholder."

4) Issue 399: Checkpoint 4.6 (Editorial)

   Status: The 4 April 2001 draft says "at least the range of
   positions" per Greg's suggestion.

5) Issue 432: Blinking images checkpoint deleted.

   Status: The Techniques document suggests that the first
   frame of an animated image be used to create the placeholder.

6) Issues 413, 435: For content or user agent or both?
 
   Status: The 4 April 2001 draft includes labels to indicate
   the scope of each checkpoint.
   
============================================================
Working Group took into account Greg's proposal in some form,
but did not adopt the proposed requirement.
============================================================

1) Issue 414: Reverse navigation is P1 requirement for 9.2.
   [Was checkpoint 7.3.]

   Status: The WG did not add this as a requirement for 9.2,
   but suggests ("should") that reverse navigation also
   be implemented.

============================================================
Working Group should discuss this proposal, but not before
going to last call.
============================================================

1) Checkpoint 10.2: Proposal to make default configuration requirements
   P2 and override requirements P1.

   Status: The Working Group has not considered this. We do the
   opposite today, and I think Greg's proposal is better. I am
   tempted to pursue this as an improvement to the UAAG 1.0,
   but it would involve changing a number or checkpoint priorities
   (essentially flipping them). The most compelling aspect of
   Greg's argument is that you don't know that a default configuration
   will be accessible to some users. So you can't put a priority on
   it. You can put a higher priority on the override ability.

=====================================================
Working Group has not discussed the proposal recently,
but has decided in the past not to do this.
=====================================================

Note: Issues that might go on the "future features" list [2]
      are marked with [Future].

[2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-new.html
  

1) Issue 418: Checkpoint 9.7: Include search on conditional
   content that has not been rendered.
   [Was checkpoint 7.5]

   Status: The WG has limited the search requirement to 
   rendered content only to avoid confusing the user. 
   [Future]

2) Issue 429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying 
   preferences.

   Status: We don't know of any APIs and we have no implementation
   experience. (I note that CC/PP might be useful for this.)
   [Future]

3) Issue 442: Checkpoint 11.3: Does this include default
   mouse click behavior? 
   [Was checkpoint 9.4 ]

   Status: The WG maintains that this is a P2 requirement. Also,
   the WG notes that device-independent operation is covered by
   checkpoint 1.1., so no need to require cross-device override 
   in this checkpoint.

4) Issue 396 new requirement: Allow the user to override absolute
   values.

   Status: We did not have a technical reason for not adding this
   requirement. It was simply time to stop adding requirements.
   [Future]

5) Issue 403: Checkpoint 4.12: Add a requirement to override
   author-supplied speech rate changes.

   Status: Our technical arguments for not including such
   a requirement:

      1) If speech engine allows user override, that's the speech
         engine's functionality, not the UA's.
      2) We don't require content transformations to strip out
         author-supplied rate changes before sending to the speech
         engine.

   Greg thinks this feasible.
   [Future]

6) Issue 435: Checkpoints 4.13-4.15: For content only or also UI?

   Status: The WG decided that most of the requirements of this
   document would be about content only (except where explicitly
   indicated as being for the user agent or both). There was a 
   conscious decision by the WG to *not* require everything for the
   UI that we require for content. One reason was that we expect
   checkpoint 7.3 to cover many of these requirements.
   [Future]

7) Issue 441: New requirement for 10.6: Same or different domain?

   Status: The WG has decided not to include this as a minimal
   requirement.
   [Future]

8) Issue 438: Include direct navigation requirements.

   Status: Direct navigation requirements are covered in
   part by keyboard binding requirements. Other than that,
   the WG did not add any direct navigation requirements
   because the combination of navigation to enabled elements
   only (checkpoint 9.6), search (9.7), and structure navigation
   (9.8) was considered a more general approach to the problem.
   [Future]

9) Issue 400 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to
   sources synchronized to play simultanously?

   Status: The WG did not choose to add a P3 checkpoint
   for independent configuration of all sound sources. I 
   proposed that we change "may" to "should" in the Note, but
   there has not been followup:

    "The user agent should satisfy this checkpoint by allowing the user
    to control independently the volumes of all distinct audio
    sources.  

10) Issue 406: Checkpoint 5.1: Lower to Priority 3

    Status: The Working Group felt that the orientation problems were
    significant enough that this checkpoint (now 5.1) should remain a
    priority 2 checkpoint. Greg's additional requirements are
    covered by checkpoints 5.3 adn 5.6.

=================================================
Ian responded to Greg's comments with explanation
=================================================

1) Issue 409: Checkpoint 5.3: What is consequence if frames 
   are not opened?

   Status: The requirement is actually to prevent new viewports from
   opening (i.e., more than alert) and to allow the user to get them
   later. Ian raised the issue of what happens if the user chooses not
   to open a viewport during a timed presentation?  
   [Future]

2) Issue 430: Checkpoint 3.2: Why is quantity of information
   more important for images than for text?

   Status: Ian commented that his understanding is that there is a
   difference to some users with cognitive disabilities between
   visually displayed images/graphics and visually displayed text.

==============================
Open concern expressed by Greg
==============================

1) Issue 389: I am still concerned that there may be places where the
   Note text adds details that apparently will be taken as a legally
   binding extension to the checkpoint wording itself, and how examples
   given in Techniques can confuse things by not distinguishing examples
   from recommendations.

   Status: Please indicate any examples you think are problematic.

===========================================
Issues where there was sufficient agreement
===========================================

1) Issue 392 (though checkpoint 1.4 no longer exists).

2) Issue 398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need
   definition of "not recognized as style"

3) Issue 407: Checkpoint 5.6: Include requirement to
   control automatic closing of viewports
 
   Status: Greg's requirements are covered by checkpoints
   5.6 and 7.3.

4) Issue 424: Do author-specified
  shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input? 

   Status: Yes (as long as the UA can recognize them).

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 13:36:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:49 GMT