- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 18:11:16 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 02:44 PM 2000-04-25 -0400, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: > >I would like to register an objection to the resolution of Issue 243. I >believe that checkpoint 9.2 should be a P3 requirement rather than a P2 >requirement because this is a content authoring problem that effects >usability. AG:: Content authoring problem - NOT: Neither HTML 4.01 nor WCAG requires the presence of an explicit SUBMIT or BUTTON elment in a FORM. Nothing in the HTML 4.01 Recommendation discourages or prevents User Agents from submitting a FORM on <ENTER> when the focus is in the FORM but not on a SUBMIT or BUTTON element. General usability issue - NOT: Elsewhere in the UAAG we advocate adhering to Operating System conventions for the User Interface. The short-cut behavior happens to be the Operating System convention in the UI conventions of the dominant OS. It is in fact a usability convenience for some users, and especially for some users with motor disabilities. So eliminating the dangerous behavior is not "just a general usability issue." The ability to suppress the shortcut behavior is a safety-of-operation issue for a specific disabled user class and the availity of the shortcut behavior is a P3 usability benefit for another class. Hence the requirement that this be under user configuration option control. Note: As a general rule, how much it affects usability for people without disabilities should not really be considered. Ideally, it is the severity of dysfunction in the person-with-disability use case that sets the priority level, at least per my rough understanding of the current common rating scheme among the three guidelines working groups. >User Agents should not be required to correct poor content as a >disability requirement. AG:: Note: Stated that flatly, I would have to disagree. The standard for content that the User Agent Guidelines assumes should be somewhat lower than the standard asked for from content providers in the WCAG. I agree we need to be _very_ careful how we design the overlap bettween things fixed in the author space and things fixed in the browser space, but there _should be_ an overlap. If you mean because it is a usability issue for non-PWD users, see the previous comment. >This creates an undue burden on user agents. Would you expand a bit on the burden? I don't yet understand why either inserting a computed SUBMIT element or requiring confirmation [when the user exercises this configuration choice] is such a big deal. Both options are open to you. >I do not feel this recommendation should go forward with this as a P2 >requirement. I understand you are following through in the way indicated at the F2F meeting. >Does anyone else agree with this[?] > Some mitigating factors -- other things that I think we should explore a bit more before turning this into a shoving match: The 'resolution' link from the issues list does not mention the [I believe consensus] draft rewrite to make it clear that this is a configuration option, not the only UI business rules that the UA implements. Have you fully considered this aspect of the resolution? It is clearly true that some visual users benefit from the shortcut. But other less visual users get bushwhacked by it. The shortcut should be configurable _out_. Just from my personal experience coaching a few visually impaired web users, my experience would tend to bear out what Gregory has documented as the severity of this impact. Of course he has more experience at this than I. There is another dimension to 'impact' that the WAI consensus priority scheme doesn't address adequately. This has to do with the intrinsic severity of the action which gets performed inadvertently. Form submission discloses personal information and deducts from your credit card. This is something that has to be _safer_ than the average web browsing misstep. Hitting the browser 'back' function doesn't fix it. That can be a rather long process. I have to admit that I factor this dimension in, in my personal assessment of this checkpoint. I know it's not on the books in the official definitions of the priorities. But to me it is very real. Looking at web interaction as a web of transactions, we need to do some "effects and criticality analysis" to go with our enumeration of "failure modes" to see how strongly protected various failure modes need to be. This one is an open manhole cover among the varieties of web perils. Al >Rich Schwerdtfeger >Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems >EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm > >"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - >I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.", >Frost >
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 18:06:15 UTC