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

Re: Issue 545: In Guideline 6, clarify "content state" rather than "content"

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:52:26 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020923085204.020c7ce0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>

Ian,
Looks good to me.  Thanks for the clarification.

Jon


At 05:23 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

>Ray, UAWG,
>
>At yesterday's teleconference [1], we discussed the issue the DOM
>WG raised (issue 545 [2]) about programmatic access to state
>information. We resolved to:
>
>   "Add a note to the Guidelines indicating that DOM 2 Core may not
>   provide all information in an HTML Doc and that implementers
>   should track the maturation of DOM 2 HTML Module which is
>   expected to provide access to that information."
>
>However, in light of further discussions with Jon Gunderson,
>Philippe Le Hegaret, and Ray Whitmer, I wish to propose further
>clarifications to checkpoints 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.6 that I think
>address the issue more completely.
>
>I believe that it has been the UAWG's intent to provide
>information to this state information. Provision three of UAAG
>1.0 [3] checkpoint 6.1 (Programmatic access to HTML/XML infoset)
>reads:
>
>  "If the user can modify HTML and XML content ("write access")
>  through the user interface (e.g., through form controls), allow
>  for the same modifications programmatically."
>
>Ray explained to me that, at least in the DOM WG's model, user
>interactions (e.g., through form controls) do not modify the
>content (i.e., the DOM tree). They change the "state" or "current
>values" of the content. I believe (but am not absolutely certain)
>that the XForms model is the same.
>
>Therefore, I propose that we make two clarifications:
>
>  a) When we talk about write access, we mean the ability
>     to make the same state changes.
>  b) We also require read access to state values, not just
>     write access. I believe that such read access has been
>     implied by the other "read" provisions in
>     checkpoints 6.1 and 6.3.
>
><PROPOSAL>
>
>  1) Modify checkpoint 6.1, provision 3 to read:
>
>    <new>
>    If the user can modify the state of HTML and XML content
>    ("write access") through the user interface (e.g., through
>    form controls), allow programmatic read access to
>    current values, and allow for the same modifications
>    programmatically.
>    </new>
>
>  2) Make the same kind of change to checkpoint 6.3 (for
>     non-HTML/XML content), provision 1:
>
>    <old>
>     For content other than HTML and XML, provide structured
>     programmatic read access to content, and write access to
>     those parts of content that the user can modify through the
>     user interface.
>    </old>
>
>    Split into two:
>
>    <new provision 1>
>     For content other than HTML and XML, provide structured
>     programmatic read access to content.
>    </new provision 1>
>
>    <new provision 2>
>    If the user can modify the state of content other than HTML
>    and XML ("write access") through the user interface,
>    allow programmatic read access to current values,
>    and allow for the same modifications programmatically.
>    </new provision 2>
>
>  3) Add a Note to checkpoint 6.2 that reads:
>
>    Note: "The DOM Level 2 Core Specification does not provide
>    access to state (current values) required by checkpoint 6.1,
>    provision 3. The DOM Level 2 HTML Module [DOM2HTML]
>    is expected to provide access to this information.
>
>  4) Clarify provision 1 of checkpoint 6.6:
>
>    "Provide programmatic notification of changes to content,
>    user agent user interface controls, selection, content
>    focus, and user interface focus."
>
>    to read:
>
>    "Provide programmatic notification of changes to content and
>    content state, user agent user interface controls, selection,
>    content focus, and user interface focus."
></PROPOSAL>
>
>I believe this proposal clarifies, but does not change
>substantially, the intention of the document. I think it aligns
>us more closely with the DOM WG's model.
>
>Furthermore, this proposal satisfies part of the DOM WG's
>suggestion:
>
>   "These states might prove significant for an accessibility
>   agent."
>
>This proposal does not add a requirement to implement the DOM
>HTML module because (1) DOM Level 1 HTML is broken, (2) DOM Level
>2 HTML is not yet a W3C Recommendation, and (3) it is late in the
>game for UAAG 1.0 to add such a requirement.
>
>Finally, there is implementation experience for read/write access
>to this state information, part of the DOM since "Level 0".
>
>Please comment on this proposal. Thank you,
>
>  _ Ian
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JulSep/0141
>[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-lc4#545
>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-UAAG10-20020821/
>
>
>--
>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 Monday, 23 September 2002 09:46:40 GMT

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