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

Re: Comments on using checkpoints to evaluate desktop graphical user agent

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:54:48 -0400
Message-ID: <37C71738.BDD4B751@w3.org>
To: jon gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
jon gunderson wrote:
> Notes on checkpoints while reviewing IE:
> Checkpoint 1.1 and 2.1 are almost identical for desktop graphical
> browsers.  We need to include examples of a KIosk orsome other
> non-keyboard/mouse based user agent in 1.1 to show that it
> is a much more general checkpoint that 2.1.

I think the rationale text (of [0]) is sufficient. Or if it's not,
is should be edited to be sufficient:

   Although keyboard access may seem to contradict   
   the previous guideline on device-independence,
   ensuring keyboard access to user agent functionality 
   is important to accessibility since keyboard access
   is available to many users and is widely supported. 

[0] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/
> Checkpoint 4.2.  Is this related to toolbars or all controls?  This may be
> to broad of a checkpoint.

I think it applies to all controls. Are all controls "active"? Maybe
we can reduce the scope by talking about the ones the user interacts
> Checkpoint 6.16 What does user interface components mean?

I think this checkpoint should be dropped. See thread beginning 
at [1]. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JulSep/0212.html
> We also need to have more examples of what views are to make it clear to
> developers.

Anything that shows a view of content: a window, frame, panner, 
magnifying glass, etc.

Other examples?

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 18:56:26 UTC

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