- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:09:46 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
There has been much discussion related to checkpoint 2.1. These are some of my observations: A. Consensus on access to all human readable (if a definition could be found) content through the user interface B. Consensus on access to all alternative equivalents through the user interface C. Currently the group has identified the primary use for access to machine readable content through the user interface is for providing access to poorly authored pages or technologies that do not fully support accessibility. The following items summarize the chairs view of the issue: 1. Seems to be most people in the working group feel that people should have access to all the information the author is providing through the UI. 2. Difficult to draw lines between human and machine types of content 3. Access versus usability issues: Most techniques for access and understand some types of author supplied information would require a higher than average knowledge and skill in the technologies that are being used. 4.Source seems to be a least common denominator, but is not very usable to most people. 5.JW and AG feel that access to element attribute information is an important issue for XML (chair conversation) 6. Changes to this checkpoint may impose new requirements and may require stepping back to a previous stage in the recommendation process. ======================= PROPOSAL: I proposed the following: 1. Checkpoint 2.1 remains the same 2. The minimum requirements are: A. All views (or view ports, IJ help here) rendered by the user agent conform to the guidelines. B. All author supplied information must be available through at least one of the view ports offered by the user agent. This does not mean that all of the information must be in one view (i.e. a source view). But the combination of views offered by the user agent must provide access to all the information provided by the author. For example, non-source view ways of providing access to author supplied content not normally rendered through the UI: 1. A context sensitive menu capability may provide option to view the author supplied attributes for the selected object in a view port. 2. A document information dialog box may provide access to meta element information of a document. C. A source view is typically only one of the views a user agent offers and is not very usable to most people. But it would satisfy access to all content, but all other views of the document must still be accessible. The only way a source view would be the only way to satisfy the requirements of 2.1 is if it was the only view offered by the user agent to anyone (not very likely for anything considering conforming to the UA guidelines). Please comment: Jon Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services College of Applied Life Studies 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 WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2000 11:09:56 UTC