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

[Techniques] Profiles and test suites for UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:20:30 -0400
Message-ID: <3ADDDAEE.E0D229DF@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

I suggest that we add to the Techniques document some informative
profiles to give developers a better sense of which checkpoints
apply to some W3C formats. 

DISCLAIMER: I came up with the following sample profiles very
quickly, but I wanted to send this idea to the Working Group for
comment.  They should not be construed as the definitive word on
what an HTML browser would have to do to satisfy UAAG 1.0. They
are only offered as examples.

There are 48 P1 requirements in the 9 April 2001 draft [1].

I think that for an HTML browser that is not conforming for
audio, video, and speech, the following 34 checkpoints would
apply:

 --
 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8
 7.1, 7.2
 8.1
 9.1, 9.2, 9.3
 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.7
 11.1
 12.1, 12.2, 12.3
 --

For a SMIL 2.0 player, the following 39 checkpoints
would apply:

 --
 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6
 3.2, 3.3
 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11
 6.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8
 7.1, 7.2
 8.1
 9.1, 9.2, 9.3
 10.2, 10.3, 10.7
 11.1
 12.1, 12.2, 12.3
 --

Here are some reasons for excluding some of the
checkpoints for the SMIL player:

 - 3.1: No notion of "background image"?
 - 3.4: No scripts? (even though DTD has script.datatype).
 - 3.5: No refreshes.
 - 6.2: User not able to modify DOM through the UI (e.g., no forms)?
 - 10.1: No tables.

I note that there are 29 checkpoints common to both profiles.

There are a number of ways of augmenting the supporting materials
for UAAG 1.0 that would convey the document's intention to
developers:

 1) Include this type of profile information (which is essentially
    another view of the existing techniques, from the point of
    view of a given format).

 2) Include test cases for each format. I credit Rob Lanphier 
    of RealNetworks with the suggestion that we should help
    organize test suites for some formats. I think that's a great
    idea. It's not a chartered deliverable and therefore I don't
    believe that we are obligated to produce test suites for
    HTML, SMIL, SVG, etc. Nonetheless, providing some foundation
    for the creation of test suites, and proving some example
    test cases would be very useful. For instance, we could
    make available a number of very short HTML files for each
    element and attribute that creates conditional content in 
    HTML 4.0. Then, it would be possible to test whether one's HTML
    browser showed the conditional content per checkpoint 2.3.

Comments welcome,

 - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409/

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 14:20:34 GMT

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