W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: checkpoint 6.6

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 03:08:09 -0400 (EDT)
To: thatch@us.ibm.com
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908190259280.21989-100000@tux.w3.org>
Seems to me to open up an interesting issue. It is possible to create a user
agent that is very handy for a specific group of people (it has certainly
been done for people who are interested in graphic rendering of websites on a
computer monitor) without making an accessible (by which I think we
understand universally useful) tool.

In the specific case of highlight and identify the selection, I think the
functional requirement is that the user can make sure that the selcted area
is identified in a way which is useful to them (within the limitations of the
User Agent's rendering methods). Does that sound like an essential
requirement, and if so is there a way we can word it better? (If not, is it a
lower priority, or a poorly conceived idea? Or have I just got the cart by
the horse...)

Charles McCN

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:
  What you have said is there exist assistive technologies that require X.
  Therefore we have made X a priority 1 requirement for user agents. How do you
  determine the quote weight endquote of X before you decide that it is heavy
  enough to have this effect.
  I am trying to look at this from a home page reader perspective; I could not
  care less that some AT uses selection for speaking.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 1999 03:08:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:22 UTC