Re: Proposed changes to UAGL to address conformance issues.

Response in JRG:
At 10:32 AM 9/15/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Please consider the following changes to the UAGL 
>(27 August version [1]). This proposal attempts to resolve
>various questions (e.g., [2]) about how different types of user
>agents will conform to the document. The proposed changes
>remove the need (I hope) for a graphical/dependent split
>while keeping the goals of the checkpoints intact. The
>last change suggests a split of a different sort to
>address interoperability.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990827 
>[2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#79
>
>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. 
>

JRG: They are two different concepts, so I have no problem with splitting them

>    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.
> 
>PROPOSAL 2) Checkpoint 3.2. The current text:
>
>     Ensure that the user has access to the content of
>     an element selected by the user.
>
>   This checkpoint is the evolution of a requirement for access 
>   to individual cells, list items, etc. However, I think some
>   of the intent is lost in the current wording. I propose 
>   the following:
>
>     Ensure that the user has access to the document
>     structure expressed by markup in an output 
>     device-independent manner.
> 

JRG: I would like to see the word "content" or "content and alternative
content" instead of "structure" in previous sentence.  To me this
checkpoint is about making sure the user gets access to all the content.

>       For example, ensure that the user can clearly 
>       understand the content of a table cell, the
>       content of a list item, the content of a header,
>       etc.
>
>     Techniques:
>     a) Provide a view of the document structure (e.g.,
>        a tree view of all elements).
>
>    Note that "output device-independent manner" means
>    for output devices supported by the software.
>
>PROPOSAL 3) Checkpoint 3.3. This checkpoint should not be 
>   for dependent user agents only. Refer to issue 84.
>
>   [2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#84   
>
>PROPOSAL 4) Checkpoint 8.3. The current text:
>
>       Allow the user to navigate just among table cells of
>       a table (notably left and right within a row and up 
>       and down within a column).
>
>    I propose that this checkpoint be for all users agents, with
>    the following note afterwards:
>
>       Navigation techniques include keyboard navigation from
>       cell to cell (e.g., using the arrow keys) and scrolling.
>       Note, however, that users must be able to navigate in
>       an input-device independent manner. 

JRG: This seems fine with me, since we have the clause related to supported
devices

>
>PROPOSAL 5) Checkpoint 9.2. The current text:
>
>       Provide the user with information about the number
>       of viewports.
>
>    I suggest that the principle of this checkpoint applies to
>    all user agents. I suggest that it be rewritten:
>
>       List all viewports (including frames).
>
>    Netscape 4.6 lists windows and frames, Lynx
>    lists frames, Opera 3.51 lists windows and allows keyboard
>    navigation of frames, IE 4 lists windows (but I don't see
>    how to list frames). All of NN, IE, and Opera allow you to
>    view the HTML source, which is a clunky way to find the
>    frame structure.
>

JRG: I think the term list is more general and allows for more information
than just the number to be provided
      
>PROPOSAL 6) Checkpoint 9.3. The current text:
>
>     Allow the user to view a document outline
>     constructed from its structural elements 
>     (e.g., from header and list elements). [Priority 2]
>
>   I don't think this should be for dependent user agents only.
>   My question is this: does a view of the markup count? It is
>   not navigable, but it is searchable. I realize that this forces
>   users to read markup, which is not desirable.
>
>PROPOSAL 7) I propose that we move checkpoint 6.6 (operating system 
>  conventions) to Guideline 7 and rename Guideline 7 as
>  "Support standard interfaces, conventions, and languages".
>
>PROPOSAL 8) Having removed checkpoint 6.6, Guideline six is only
>  about communication among software. This guideline is
>  meant to make general purpose browsers accessible by
>  having them communicate with assistive technologies
>  that are taking advantage of work already done by
>  the browser (or other user software). While it would
>  be good if assistive technologies communicated through
>  standard means, I don't believe that was the original
>  intent of this guideline. 
>
>  To avoid definitions like "graphical desktop
>  browser" and "dependent user agent", I propose that
>  we allow two other types of conformance:
>
>   a) Conformance as a stand-alone user agent:
>           You don't have to satisfy any checkpoints
>           in Guideline 6.
>   b) Conformance as an interoperable user agent.
>           You have to satisfy all the checkpoints
>           in Guideline 6.
>
>  This split is natural - it is precisely about interoperability
>  and not other user agent functionalities.
>
>  This proposal may seem to undermine the goal 
>  of interoperability. I don't think it does. If a user
>  agent developer doesn't care about interoperability,
>  they won't satisfy these checkpoints anyway, even if the
>  the software highly accessible in other ways or to
>  targetted users. We are still saying
>  that interoperability is important and also "If you
>  want to ensure interoperability, you must do these things."
>  However, interoperability is not the only element of 
>  accessibility. That's why there are other guidelines.
>
>OPEN ISSUE: There are two remaining checkpoints currently listed
>as being for dependent UAs only: 9.8 and 9.9: access to cell headers
>and table dimensions. Checkpoint 9.9 is Priority 3, and it might
>be simplest just to make it apply to all user agents. Checkpoint
>9.8 is priority 1. I haven't figured out yet how to modify these
>checkpoints.
>  
> - Ian
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
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.w3.org/wai/ua
		http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 1999 14:19:27 UTC