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

Re: UAWG response to HTML WG review of UAAG 1.0

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:16:05 +0200
Message-ID: <13cb01c26bb0$950c90c0$7ef5a8c0@srx41p>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>

(Please don't send mail to stevenpemberton at yahoo.com, as this reply was).

From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>

> Substantive issues
> ------------------

[Definition of a text format]

Accepted.

>     "Blinking text is text whose visual rendering alternates between
>     visible and invisible, at any rate of change."
>
>   And so not blinking between different colours?

> The UAWG agrees that rapidly changing text colors can be disorienting
> to some users. However, the UAWG does not think that any substantive
> change to the document is required because checkpoint 4.3 ensures
> that the user can override author-specified colors.

I don't think that this is a question of control over colours, but an
effective definition of 'blinking text'. I believe you will regret this
eventually, because I believe that blinking text is *not* only text that
alternates between visible and invisible, but if you want to stay with this
definition, so be it.

>    Checkpoint 3.5

[Usage of http-equiv in examples]

According to HTML 4, http-equiv is a server-side redirect, not a client-side
redirect (though extant UAs seem to interpret them). Please remove examples
of using http-equiv for client-side redirection. You may use them in a
techniques section, pointing it out as UA behaviour, even though it is
strictly incorrect.

> The UAWG believes that the normative wording of the checkpoint
> expresses the real intention:
>
>    "Allow configuration so that the user agent only retrieves content
>    on explicit user request."

Agreed.

> The UAWG proposes to change bullet two in the normative inclusions
> as follows:
>
>       "Authors (and Webmasters) should use the redirect mechanisms of
>       HTTP instead of client-side redirects.
>
>     to:
>
>       "Authors (and Webmasters) should use server-side redirects
>        instead of client-side redirects."

I think this misses the point. The point is to avoid users being presented
with new stuff without warning; whether this happens because of something
that happens on the server or on the client is not important to the
requirement (a server can send a timed redirect too).

It may be that existing UAs react more in keeping with this requirement if
the redirect comes from the server, but this is neither sufficient nor
necessary.

>   "For example, if the user agent supports automatic content
>    retrieval (e.g., via the HTML "meta" element), allow
>    configurations such as "Never retrieve content automatically"
>    and "Require confirmation before content retrieval."

Please remove the bracketed (e.g.)

> You wrote:
>
>    "For the purposes of satisfying this checkpoint, Cascading
>    Style Sheets (CSS) are defined by either CSS Level 1 [CSS1] or
>    CSS Level 2 [CSS2]."  Why not state "any level of CSS" so you
>    don't have to republish when level 3 comes out?
>
> UAWG reply:
>
>    Open-ended and future references weaken the document, and the
>    UAWG has chosen in the past to eliminate as many as
>    possible. We do have some of these (e.g., "conform to operating
>    environment conventions") when we cannot tighten the spec
>    otherwise, but we have eliminated references to future
>    Recommendations.
>
> ==

Accepted.

> The UAWG agrees that the definition of "single-key mode" needs
> clarification. The sufficient technique for this provision
> currently reads:
>
>    "The user agent may satisfy the requirements of provision two
>    of this checkpoint with a "single-key mode" (i.e., a mode where
>    the current bindings are replaced by a set of single-key
>    bindings)."
>
> This can be clarified to read:
>
>    "The user agent may satisfy the requirements of provision two
>    of this checkpoint with a "single-key mode". In a single-key
>    mode, the set of required functionalities must be
>    available through single-key bindings. The user must be able
>    to remain in single-key mode until explicitly requesting
>    to leave it."

Accepted.

> Editorial issues

> UAWG reply to issue 547:
>    http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/issues/issues-linear-lc4#547
>
>    This is a bug in the spec. The checkpoint should read:
>
>     "Allow the user to activate, through keyboard input alone, all
>     input device event handlers that are explicitly associated with
>     the element designated by the content focus."

Accepted.

Thanks!

Steven Pemberton
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 10:16:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:12 GMT