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

Re: Repair of Pointer Based Events

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:10:45 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, WAI PF group <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102091656180.20759-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Ian Jacobs wrote:
[I have reversed the paragraphs to respond to them - CMN]
  I don't think that "authors will always do the wrong thing" is a
  good reason to push the requirement to user agent developers. We
  have a hard enough time getting specs implemented properly.


I disagree. After all, requirements not to do a number of "wrong things" in
WCAG were reduced in priority or removed because user agents were already
capable of handling them without problem. On the flip side, there are
requirements n WCAG that are there only because User Agents do "the wrong
thing". I think that is reasonable - the goal is to make sure that the web is
accessible. If this is most readily achieved by doing things in user agents
because authors won't implement, then that is how we should go about it. If
it is most readily achieved by changing the behaviour of authors, we should
do that (Hence ATAG).

  This version of UAAG 1.0 intentionally does not include much in the
  way of repair functionality. Is there a reason why this (if it's
  considered repair) should have more weight than other repair
  features that have not been included?

Impact on users. As I understood it this is the first criterion for any
requirement. Second is whether it can be implemented. The two of these are
more or less hurdles - if it fails one or the other, it is difficult to
justify it being in there. Degree of difficulty to implement is by comparison
rather less important.


Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 17:10:47 UTC

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