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

Re: Comments on Working Draft as of April 9

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:48:36 -0400
Message-ID: <3AE602C4.B7B8D6F1@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
CC: STotman1@aol.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi Jon and Scott,

My comments below preceded by IJ:.

Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> >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

IJ: Yes, I would support this, too.
 
> >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.

IJ: Yes, I would agree with making this configurable as well. 
More specifically:

 - The UA satisfies the requirement if disabled elements
   are never in the navigation order, or
 
 - The UA satisfies the requirement if there's a configuration so
   that disabled elements do not appear in the navigation order.

> >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.

IJ: I think this is an important topic, but I may have to miss the
teleconference where it is discussed (regrets for 26 April and 3 May).
As I mentioned in my recent email ([1], issue 13), I think that
we need to be able to present a consistent model in the document
and provide sufficient rationale when we deviate from it (e.g.,
our P1 requirement to support the DOM for XML content).

 _ Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 18:48:43 GMT

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