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

Re: Comments on Working Draft as of April 9

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:53:22 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: STotman1@aol.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Thank you for your comments.
My comments marked as JRG:

At 10:42 PM 4/23/2001 -0400, STotman1@aol.com wrote:
>Hey folks,
>Just a couple comments on an overall well written document...
>Checkpoint 6.4:  I have some concern over the "write access" portion of the
>checkpoint.  For security reasons, we generally need to prevent write access
>to most of our controls, whether it be from an in-process or out of process
>application.  Also, for consistency with checkpoint 6.2, limit the write
>requirement to those controls that may be edited through the user interface.

JRG: This seems reasonable to me, we will discuss it with the group

>Checkpoint 9.6:  Can we allow a configurable option that would include
>navigation of disabled elements?  This may be best suited as a comment in the
>Techniques section.  From our experience, we have elements that are disabled
>at one time and then enabled at another time.  For a consistent navigation,
>some users have preferred allowing navigation of disabled elements.  In this
>case, the element would simply indicate that it is currently disabled.  It
>prevents the scenario of elements that seem to disappear.

JRG: This is an interesting question.  Should this be a requirement or a 
good technique.

>Checkpoint 6.6:  I understand the need for standard APIs and documented APIs
>for non-standard implementations.  But because of the way some ATs work,
>custom code has had to be written by both AOL and AT developers.  The same is
>true for other software companies.  I believe a priority one for the
>implementation of a user agent should be "make it work".  Priority two should
>be "make it work using standards".  I can go into much greater detail about
>this if it draws a discussion.

JRG: I would like to talk to you more about this issue and why standard 
accessibility APIs or standard APIs fall short of the accessibility 
requirements.  My main concern is that we want to reduce the reliance on 
proprietary or special solutions for individual assistive technologies, 
since this will make it harder for developers to make their software 
accessible and a smaller number of assistive technologies maybe supported.

Could you come to our teleconference on Thursday, April 26th or May 3rd to 
discuss this issue more?
Telecon time is 2:00 EST.

Thanks again for your comments.  They have been added to our last call 
issue list at:


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
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
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 08:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:30 UTC