W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Proposal for Checkpoints 1.2, 9.5 and 9.6

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:58:21 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020606085059.01f0b5c0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

I suggest that we just put the checkpoints 1.2, 9.5 and 9.6 in a special 
group and call it something like:

1. "Events": seems too general to me, but it is simple and doesn't use the 
word "repair"
2. "Pointer Events": more specific, but checkpoints 9.5 and 9.6 are more 
than just pointer events
3. "Mouse Events": sounds very device specific
4. "User interface events": a little more descriptive of the types of 
events we are interested in

We should leave the labels of other checkpoints alone and not try to make 
major changes with the labeling.

Jon

Jon


At 05:11 PM 6/5/2002 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
>>The following checkpoints are all related to the problem of authors not 
>>using accessible design practices:
>>Checkpoint 1.2 Activate event handlers
>>Checkpoint 9.5 No events on focus change
>>Checkpoint 9.6 Show event handlers
>>The list discussion suggested that these were important requirements to 
>>keep with one vote to remove the requirements altogether.
>>PROPOSAL: We create a new label called "repair" that would include this 
>>set of checkpoints and the following checkpoints:
>>Checkpoint 2.2 Provide text view. (P1)
>>Checkpoint 2.7 Repair missing content. (P2)
>>Checkpoint 2.8 No repair text. (P3)
>>These checkpoints I think are all related to repairing poorly authored 
>>web pages.
>>The advantage of a "repair" label is that we can keep the requirements, 
>>but still provide a means for user agents to conform even if they do not 
>>implement these specific requirements.
>
>Jon,
>
>I like the idea of a repair checkpoint. I'm not sure I would
>include 2.2 in that list, however. I think that this is a "last
>resort" checkpoint and should remain a P1 checkpoint.
>
>I haven't reviewed the other checkpoints in the document to see
>whether there are other repairs that we require.
>
>I hesitate to use the word "repair" to label the set, but I don't
>have a counter-proposal right now. In the case of HTML event handlers, for 
>example, it's not an authoring error to specify a mouse binding only. It 
>is an error with respect to WCAG 1.0:
>
>  9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than
>      device-dependent event handlers.
>
>I think we should be able to show why each checkpoint is
>a repair checkpoint.
>
>  _ Ian
>
>
>
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

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 Thursday, 6 June 2002 09:57:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:07 GMT