Re: Proposed changes to UAGL to address conformance issues.

I appreciate the work here Ian, and am sad that I had to miss the
discussion this morning.  I've only one portion to speak to at this
time which is the ffollowing:
Ian Jacobs wrote:
> PROPOSAL 1) Checkpoint 1.1. The current text:
> 
>       Ensure that all functionalities offered through
>       the user interface may be operated through standard
>       input device APIs supported by the operating system.
> 
>   I propose that we split this checkpoint into two:
> 
>      a)  Ensure that all functionalities offered through
>          the user interface are available through all supported
>          input devices. Note: The device-independence
>          required by this checkpoint applies to functionalities
>          described by the other checkpoints in this document
>          unless otherwise stated by individual checkpoints.
> 
>      b)  Use standard input device APIs provided by the
>          operating system.
> 
>     The text of (a) comes from previous versions of the
>     guidelines. However, I think checkpoint 1.1 in [1] mixes
>     two very important points: all functionalities must be available
>     AND use standard input device APIs. Thus, I propose the split.
> 
>     I have noted that while reviewing Netscape Navigator, that verifying
>     (a) is near impossible unless you are a developer or have access to
>     details about how the tool's internal APIs connect to the interface.
>     I propose that we include a note in the document that informs users
>     that it may be difficult to verify certain checkpoints without
>     detailed software documentation.

This is true of course if you are not the developper but it should not
hinder developpers from compliance?
Thanks!

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 13:44:16 UTC