Re: ACTION-211

If we think it's worthwhile to encourage UA developers to make such view options easily toggled, we have three approaches:

First, we could put language about easy access to the feature into each SC to which it's relevant. The advantage of this approach is it makes it really obvious to developers what we expect of them, and for which SC. 

For example, something like "3.6.1 Configure Text:  The user can globally set the following characteristics of visually rendered text content, overriding any specified by the author or user agent defaults, AND ENABLE OR DISABLE THIS OPTION WITH NO MORE THAN THREE KEYSTROKES (Level A)..." (That's not intended to be final wording.) 

Second, we could have a single SC that applies this additional recommendation to those SC where we feel it's appropriate. This SC could even enumerate the other SC to which it would apply. The advantage of this approach is that it doesn't make the document much longer, it doesn't complicate the language of many existing SC, and it allows making options "easily toggled" to be lower priority than the basic requirement to provide the options (even if inconvenient). 

For example, "x.x.x: the user should be able, using no more than three keystrokes, to enable or disable options that change the rendering of the page. This specifically applies to x.x.x, x.x.x,..." 

Note that there is precedent for this approach in ISO 9241-171 and ANSI 200.2, which have success criteria such as "Software shall allow assistive technology to modify keyboard focus and selection attributes of user-interface elements, as specified in 8.5.3."

Third, we could drop the concept of "easily toggled" from the SC and only add it as recommended "best practices" in the Implementing document.

Thoughts?

-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: ACTION-211
From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
To: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 2/3/2010 2:02 AM

ACTION-211
Write generic criteria for configurability of UI and content UI controls 
(turn on/off, visual presentation, etc)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2009JulSep/0018.html
In reality this action item is missed named, going over the preceding 
discussion we see that it focused on the question of if global 
configurability was required to be within a separate guideline.

a snip from the discussion shows the intent:

-- 
Show/hide direct keyboard commands are equivalent to show/hide alt text, 
etc.

KP: user needs ability change show/hide link number indicators

GL: similar to show/hide alternative content. could we have something 
general that covers both
... and/or visual indicator of what is a link

KP: should be more global not a per instance
... UA puts numbers by links, but overwrite contents, some users may 
need bigger number or high contrast or translucent

<Greg> How about something like "the user should be able to easily 
toggle options that change the rendering of the page."


KP: and be able to quickly turn them on/off
-- 

Looking into the current draft configurability is mentioned all through 
the document, as an overarching principle through the preamble, and then 
specifically at many separate guidelines relating to content and UI 
control:

3.1.2 3.1.5 alternative text


3.5.2 highlighting



3.6 text



3.7/3.8 synthesyser



3.9 style sheet



3.12 aternative views and renderings



also preferences, toolbars, and navigation


In this case I think we do not need a generic criteria as all aspects 
are very bespoke and any criteria for configuration should be defined as 
a guidelines point.

Cheers
Si.

=======================

Simon Harper
University of Manchester (UK)

Human Centred Web Lab: http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk

My Site: http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/harper/

My Diary (Web): 
http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/harper/phpicalendar/week.php
My Diary (Subscribe): 
http://hcw.cs.manchester.ac.uk/diaries/harper/SimonHarper.ics


****

**

**

**

Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 03:18:05 UTC