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

(Action) Issue 394: Proposed revision to checkpoint 2.1

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:45:36 -0500
Message-ID: <3A57BC30.F6243FC3@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

Per my action item from the 30 November 2000 teleconference [1],
please consider this proposed change to checkpoint 2.1 to resolve
issue 394 [2]. The reviewer wrote:

  "I feel the description of 2.1 is too vague on exactly what portions
  of the content are satisfied by providing a document source
  view. You say it's good enough for some things, but not everything,
  and give a few examples but no clear guidance on how to extrapolate
  to other cases."

From the 29 Dec 2000 draft:

<OLD 2.1>
2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. [P1]

  Note: Users must have access to the entire document object through
  the user interface, including recognized equivalents, attributes,
  style sheets, etc. This checkpoint does not require that all content
  be available in every viewport. A document source view is an
  important part of a solution for providing access to content, but is
  not a sufficient solution on its own for all content. See guideline
  5 for more information about programmatic access to content.
</OLD 2.1>

Comments and observations:

1) If a document source view alone is not a sufficient solution, then
Notepad cannot conform to UAAG 1.0. (In any case, whether Notepad can
conform at P2 depends on whether plain text meets the requirements of
checkpoint 6.2.). I will assume for the moment that we don't want a
user agent that consists only of a source view to conform.

2) I think that 2.1 needs to state clearly that:

  a) Most content will be used as rendered according to specification.
     This means that in general, users will not read CSS style sheets
     or scripts, but will experience their effects after processing.

  b) 2.1 also requires a source view for viewing unprocessed content,
     because there are cases where that is the only way for the user
     to get information.

3) It is possible to claim conformance for a user agent that doesn't
feature a source view in conjunction with Notepad. [I don't mean to
pick on Notepad <grin> - I mean any source-viewing tool here.] There
is no requirement in UAAG 1.0 that the two pieces of software must be
"integrated" to satisfy the requirements of the document.

So, I propose making the document source view requirement more
explicit in the checkpoint:

<NEW 2.1>
2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. 
Offer a document source view in addition to other views. [P1]

  Note: The user must have access to the entire document object
  (including recognized equivalents, attributes, style sheets, etc.)
  through the user interface. In most cases, the user views content
  (markup, style sheets, scripts, etc.) after it has been processed.
  A source view is required so that, as a last resort, the user may
  consult the source when content is not accessible through any
  other views. A document source view alone does not satisfy this
  checkpoint. This checkpoint does not require that all content be
  available in every viewport. See guideline 5 for more information
  about programmatic access to content.  
</NEW 2.1>

 - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364
[2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20001229/

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Saturday, 6 January 2001 19:45:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT