- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:05:41 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 06:44 PM 12/16/98 -0500, you wrote: >Actually, my concern is that if we provide a specification which is >incomplete, then two problems may arise: > >1) The document will not help User Agents which do not fit the categories >we produce. We don't know that we have identified sufficient techniques for such a User Agent. If there is a User Agent that operates in an environment (UI profile) that we didn't anticipate and analyze, we are not prepared to say what techniques are required in that environment. They can study the techniques, but we haven't done the necessary homework to make a prescription for that case. >2) Currently the techniques document says: >1.1 Media dependencies > [snip...] > An enabled user agent must implement a Priority 1 technique when it is > enabled for that technique. I think that what we are wrestling with is the following: this positive statement is not the correct test. Keyboard access to on-mouse-over events is not so much required for User Agents where the keyboard is enabled. It is required where the mouse is disabled. The correlation between UI capabilities and techniques is negative; lacking one, one requires the other. We need alternate paths for those user dialog strategies which assume device capabilities which are not supported in the user's selected UI profile or use pattern. >On the other hand, as I understand it I am the only person in the working >group who feels this way. So having recorded my concern, I feel that >unless people really want to follow it up I will defer to the group and we >need not discuss it further. Well, you could be onto something we all missed. Does this reasoning make sense to you? Al
Received on Thursday, 17 December 1998 08:04:50 UTC