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

Re: (Action) Issue 394: Proposed revision to checkpoint 2.1

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:42:31 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010109083854.02e5a288@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I agree with Ian.  I think that we should have a specific requirement for 
access to the document source.  While a document source view is the most 
common practice of providing access to the source, I think the concept of a 
document source view is to provide access to the source information.  If 
there are other ways to do this than a text editor view we can put them in 
the techniques document.

Charles would you be willing to submit a technique on how Amaya provides a 
document source view?

Jon



At 11:35 PM 1/8/2001 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >
> > This includes a requirement for the unprocessed source. I am arguing that
> > that is not necessary at a P1 level - if we want it as a requirement we
> > should make it seperate, and P2.
>
>Here's my reasoning why I think it's important to move the
>source view (or similar) requirement up to the checkpoint level.
>While this may seem like a new requirement, it is, in my
>opinion, an old, buried requirement.
>
>We require that all content be available through the user
>interface. We have also said that, because some users may
>not be able to access content when that content has
>been processed according to specification
>(e.g., scripts or style sheets), we require them to have
>access to the raw, unprocessed content. I think that
>we mean more than "a source view is probably a good idea
>as a last ditch solution". I think that we have meant:
>the user *must* be able to look at the source in case
>of emergency.
>
>I don't think that requiring a source view formally
>is a heavy burden since all user agents I am aware
>of do this anyway.
>
>  - Ian
>
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> >   Charles and Ian,
> >   We may be able to say something like this in Ian's proposal:
> >
> >   <NEW 2.1>
> >   2.1 Make all content available through the user interface.
> >   Provide access to the unprocessed source information in addition to other
> >   views. [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. Access to the source information 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.
> >
> >   </NEW 2.1>
> >
> >   This implies a source view, but allows the developer other options.
> >
> >   JOn
> >
> >   At 08:05 PM 1/6/2001 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >   >This is two seperate requirements.
> >   >
> >   >In the past, (e.g. at the Princeton face to face meeting) I have 
> argued that
> >   >a source view is not actually necessary.  Earlier versions of Amaya 
> did not
> >   >make the source available, although they did provide a structured 
> view of the
> >   >entire document object, and I believe that this would have satisfied the
> >   >actual requirement.
> >   >
> >   >So I propose the following text:
> >   >
> >   >   <MyNew2.1>
> >   >
> >   >2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. [P1]
> >   >
> >   >Note: The user must have access to the entire document object (including
> >   >recognized equivalents, attributes, style sheets, etc.) through the user
> >   >interface. This allows the user to view content (markup, style sheets,
> >   >scripts, etc.) after it has been processed. 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.
> >   >
> >   >   </MyNew2.1>
> >   >
> >   >Essentially I have cut the requirement to have a source view per se 
> - it is a
> >   >useful technique and should be included in the techniques. But if 
> there is
> >   >access already to the document object, a source view is not actually
> >   >necessary, so shouldn't be required by a checkpoint. Nor is it 
> sufficient to
> >   >meet the checkpoint (which the checkpoint already says).
> >   >
> >   >cheers
> >   >
> >   >Charles McCN
> >   >
> >   >On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >   >
> >   >   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:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >    - 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/
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >--
> >   >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 
> 409 134 136
> >   >W3C Web Accessibility 
> Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
> >   >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
> >   >until 6 January 2001 at:
> >   >W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
> >   >France
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
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, 9 January 2001 09:40:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC