- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:26:15 -0600
- To: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
The rationale is that even if the documentation is not accessible, somebody culd still use the user agent. In general Priority 1 is reserved for the checkpoints that make it impossible for people to do without the feature. Priority level 2 still indicates that it is very difficult if it is not accessible. We are trying to limit and focus the priority 1 to the items that are most essential for implementation. Jon At 02:00 PM 2/18/99 -0500, mark novak wrote: >hi > >[ February 10th version ] > >along with Kitch's comments, I was wondering why 4.1.2, Ensure that product >documentation is available in at least one accessible, open standard >electronic >format (e.g., HTML, XML, ASCII)., was not a priority 1? Just seems a bit >strange that so much effort is going into improving the UA, yet "at least one" >accessible form of the documentation is only a "should" (priority 2 >definition). > >mark > > > >>Hi, >> >> >>The following are my comments on section 4, "Ensure that the user interface >>is accessible." My comments are based on the February 10th version of the >>guidelines at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19990210/ My >>comments are preceded by KB: and I've cut any text that I thought was ok as >>is. I hope they make sense. >> >> >>Kitch >> >> >> >>Section 4.1 Ensure accessible product installation, documentation, and >>configuration >> >>4.1.1 [Priority 1] >> Ensure that the software may be installed in a device-independent >>manner for all supported input and output devices. >> >>KB: I think the words "for all" should be replaced with "using any" so the >>checkpoint would read >> >> Ensure that the software may be installed in a device-independent >>manner using any supported input and output devices. >> >> >>4.1.4 [Priority 2] >> Follow operating system conventions for user interface design, user >>agent configuration (including configuration profiles), product >>installation and documentation, and accessibility flags and interfaces. >> >>KB: Should the last word, interfaces, be changed to settings? I assume that >>this checkpoint means that user agent should pass through OS accessibility >>settings such as color schemes and font sizes that the user has set in the >>OS. I don't know if accessibility interfaces is clear. >> >> >> >>Section 4.2 Support input and output device-independence >> >> >>4.2.3 [Priority 1] >> Ensure that the user can activate the links in a document in an input >>device-independent manner. >>4.2.4 [Priority 1] >> Ensure that the user can activate the form controls in a document in >>an input device-independent manner. >> >> >>KB: Did we decide on the teleconference that these two checkpoints could be >>combined into a single checkpoint by substituting "all active elements" for >>"links" and "form controls" ? >> >> >> >>Section 4.3 Support accessible keyboard input >> >> >> >>4.3.1 [Priority 2] >> Allow the user to configure keyboard access to user agent >>functionalities. Configuration includes the ability to specify single as >>well as multi-key access. >> >> >>KB: This may be a silly question, but will it be obvious to developers what >>single and multi-key access means? I wonder if the checkpoint should read - >>Configuration includes the ability to specify single keystroke commands as >>well as commands that require keystroke combinations. >> >> >> >>4.3.2 [Priority 2] >> Ensure that user can find out about all keyboard bindings. >>4.3.4 [Priority 3] >> Display keyboard bindings in menus. >> >>KB: We discussed on the telecon that checkpoint 4.3.4 is covered by >>checkpoint 4.3.2. >> >> >> >> 4.4 Ensure that users can disable features that might interfere with >>accessibility >> >>KB: suggested rewording >> >>Users must be able to turn on and off support for features that may >>interfere with accessibility. User agents are only expected to provide [KB: >>this] control for content that it recognizes [KB: such] as an image, >>blinking text, etc. For example, an applet may cause text to blink but the >>user agent may not be able to detect it since the blinking text is >>generated by an applet rather than markup or style sheets. A user agent >>should recognize text that blinks because of markup or style sheets. >>Details are provided in the techniques document. >> >> >> >> >>4.4.12 [Priority 1] >> Allow the user to turn on and off support for spawned windows. >> >>KB: I know that spawned windows are a problem but I am not sure if it is a >>priority 1 problem. What do people think? Is it important to let the user >>turn off this feature or should the user agent just make sure that the user >>is notified when a new window is spawned? > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services 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 http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Thursday, 18 February 1999 16:28:23 UTC