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

Issue 546: Increased granularity necessary (e.g., individual scripting languages on/off). [closed]

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:51:50 -0400
Message-ID: <3D8B9876.2000905@w3.org>
To: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Brian,

Thank you for your last call comments [1] on UAAG 1.0. It seems
that most of the comments have been resolved on the list,
and do not require changes to the document.

We logged one issue (546 [2]) that the UAWG discussed at
the 19 Sep teleconference [3]. The UAWG discussed the question
of whether to clarify the required granularity of checkpoint 3.4:

    "1.  Allow configuration not to execute any executable content
         (e.g., scripts and applets)."

The question was whether 3.4 should be changed to clarify any
of the following:

  a) Per-scripting language switches are sufficient to satisfy
     the checkpoint.

  b) Per-scripting language switches are necessary to satisfy
     the checkpoint.

  c) Per-scripting language swiches are undesirable since the
     user may not be aware of which technologies are being
     used by the author, and therefore it's burdensome to have
     to use more than one global switch.

The UAWG decided to make no change to the checkpoint. This means
that:

  a) Per-scripting language switches are sufficient.
  b) Per-scripting language switches are not necessary.
  c) A global switch is sufficient (and even desirable).

Therefore, the resolution was to add information to the
techniques document about the pros and cons of per-language
and global switches.

You also wrote that:

  "I guess related to this is the ease of disabling features.  For
   example, blinking or animated text could be implemented in various
   ways (e.g. proprietary HTML tags, through CSS, through JavaScript,
   through animated GIFs,  through Java, etc.).  An end user would
   want to switch off the animation, and not CSS, Javascript, etc. as
   they won't necessary know about these technologies."

The UAAG 1.0 addresses this point to some extent in the Notes
after checkpocints 3.4 and 4.14.

The UAWG did not choose to add a requirement that requires 
functionalities that satisfy the requirements of
UAAG 1.0 be configurable in a mutually independent manner.
This is, as you say, an implementation issue, and it affects all 
users, not just users with disabilities.

Please indicate whether you are satisfied with how the UAWG
has addressed your review comments. If you feel other changes
are necessary, please suggest concrete text.

Thank you again,

  - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0115
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-lc4#546
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0141
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 17:57:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:11 GMT