- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:18:43 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello, I spoke with both AOL and Adobe today and have a few notes from those meetings. Based on our very useful discussion, I hope that both companies will send in formal last call comments. I would like to thank them for taking the time to chat with me and to review the document! Below I have jotted down some remarks that I don't think would be part of a review by either company. Reference document: 9 April 2001 draft [1]. - Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409/ --------------------------------------------- Issue 1) Is focus always required? [Proposal] --------------------------------------------- A number of checkpoints make requirements related to the content focus: 1.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.5, 7.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 10.2, 10.3, 10.7, 10.8, and 11.5. If the format does not include any interactive elements, what should become of the focus requirements? For instance, if a user agent is rendering a movie format or an image format where there is no interactivity (in the sense of interactive elements) by specification, what should happen to the focus requirements? Proposed: Perhaps the answer is that these checkpoints don't apply because the format doesn't allow the user agent to recognize (or control) enabled elements. --------------------------------------------- Issue 2) Checkpoint 9.3: Plug-ins and history [No proposal] --------------------------------------------- Suppose that a plug-in is used to render a particular image format in a viewport "V". Who is responsible for maintaining the history information (of focus, selection, and point of regard) when the user takes focus from "V" and then gives it back to "V" later? Is it the plug-in's responsibility? Or another module of the user agent (in which case, what is the API used to send history information back to the plug-in)? --------------------------------------------- Issue 3) Checkpoints 3.2/4.4: All animated images? [No proposal] --------------------------------------------- It's not clear that all animated image formats make sense with the requirements of checkpoint 3.2. For instance, those animated images "in a box" make sense (e.g., with respect to placeholders that are also "box-like"), but other animated SVG images may not be "box-like". There may be some cases where certain animations are authored in a way that makes certain requirements not really apply. For instance, it's possible to author an SVG animation where the animation changes based on user input. What does "fast forward" mean for such an image (checkpoint 4.5). In other cases, there may be interdependencies among animations that make the element-level control of 4.4 difficult or impossible (these are the animations that are not "box-like").. I hope that the Adobe review will help us get clarification on these technical issues. -------------- Clarifications -------------- Here are some proposed minor clarifications: - The definition of user agent mentions plug-ins (as potential components of a conforming user agent). They should also be mentioned in the definition of viewport, and possibly in the Note after checkpoint 9.1, since a plug-in may contribute a viewport to the set of (navigable) viewports. - There are some bugs in the definition of "explicit user request". The term "recognize" is used, and that is part of the definition, but the user agent may recognize something that the *user* doesn't know about (e.g., because it's part of the markup that the user doesn't see). We need to clarify how an "explicit user request" is identified. I don't have a proposal today. -------------- Techniques -------------- - Add more techniques about plug-in interfaces. - Checkpoint 3.6: Add the same HTML markup used in 3.5. -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 21:18:47 UTC