Re: Action Items (find definition for focus, clarify change of context)

Thanks Gez,

Some comments inline (marked [BBC]).

-Ben

Gez Lemon wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was given two action items from last week's Tuesday teleconference:
> 
> 1: Look at definition of focus in other W3C specs
> 2: Include clarification about change in context vs. change in content
> and incorporate David's suggestion about menus.
> 
> 
> Action Item 1: Look at definition of focus in other W3C specs
> 
> I couldn't find a definition for focus in any of the markup
> specifications, CSS specifications, or DOM specifications. There were
> two parts of the HTML 4.01 specification that talk about focus, but do
> not define the term:
> 
> A: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/scripts.html#adef-onfocus
> "The onfocus event occurs when an element receives focus either by the
> pointing device or by tabbing navigation. This attribute may be used
> with the following elements: A, AREA, LABEL, INPUT, SELECT, TEXTAREA,
> and BUTTON."
> 
> B: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.11
> "In an HTML document, an element must receive focus from the user in
> order to become active and perform its tasks. For example, users must
> activate a link specified by the A element in order to follow the
> specified link. Similarly, users must give a TEXTAREA focus in order
> to enter text into it."
> 

[BBC] Webster includes the following definition that I think is 
representative of how wer're using the term:

5 a : a center of activity, attraction, or attention  b : a point of 
concentration

So, we could define focus as, "a point of user agent concentration or 
activity." I wonder if we need to define "focus" at all though. In 
reviewing open issues, this did not seem to be a point of confusion. 
Thoughts?

> 
> Action Item 2: Include clarification about change in context vs.
> change in content and incorporate David's suggestion about menus.
> 
> Am I right in thinking that David's suggestion was about context
> menus? If so, I'm not sure how it could be included in the success
> criteria. If I've misunderstood what was required of me, please
> explain and I'll try and get something together before Tuesday's
> meeting.

[BBC] I think the clarification about change in content vs. change of 
context was meant for the intent section of this guide doc draft. It 
came from Gregg's note on the old level 1 SC1:

<blockquote 
cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teama/2005Sep/0031">

Change of context should not be confused with change of content. Small
changes in content, such as an expanding outline, do not change the 
context and therefore, are not covered by this particular success criterion.

</blockquote>

If I remember correctly, David's suggestion was to also mention 
expanding/hover menus such that it would be clear to a reader that these 
(small) changes of content would not be considered changes of context.

> 
> Context means to take into account other information, such as the
> setting or surroundings, to help determine the meaning of something. A
> context menu, as the name suggests, is context aware, and the items
> included in the menu consider the context at the point where the menu
> is activated. For example, right-clicking on different elements in a
> web page will produce a menu that contains items relevant to that
> element. A context menu may include an item such as "open link in a
> new window", which wouldn't appear in the menu if the menu was
> activated in a part of the document that wasn't a link.
> 
> The current definition for "change of context" is:
> 
> "A change of user agent, viewport, user interface controls, or focus;
> or complete change of content."
> 
> The contentious areas as it stands are "user interface controls",
> which there has been a proposal to remove, and "complete change of
> content", which could be interpreted as no change of context if the
> whole document changes except a specific item, such as a logo.
> 
> In terms of our guideline, context relates to the meaning of the
> original document. If the content of the document changes to an extent
> where the document no longer has the same meaning, then there has been
> a change in context. Based on this, I suggest the following definition
> for change of context:
> 
> "A change of user agent, viewport, or focus; or a change of content
> that changes the meaning of the original document."

[BBC] I think this is a great suggestion. It seems to solve the problems 
we've identified with both "complete" and the previously proposed "main."

Only suggestion woudl be to replace "original document" with "delivery 
unit."

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 16:12:10 UTC