- From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:15:35 -0500
- To: <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 4:35 PM 4/26/00, <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: >Lets not stop at JavaScript, any extension that accesses the DOM will fall >into this mess: ActiveX objects, VBScript, DirectDOM Weblets, etc. MN: sorry, still don't buy your argument, no matter what technology you wish to toss at it. >Rich > > >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 > > >menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak)@w3.org on 04/26/2000 03:34:05 PM > >Sent by: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org > > >To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Al Gilman > <asgilman@iamdigex.net> >cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org >Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Checkpoint 9.2 > > > >see comments at MN below: > >At 3:00 PM 4/26/00, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: >>>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. >> >>Sure. In a browser the number of layers between the point at which >>activation occurred to the point at which the activation is actually >>activated at the posting layer is significant. Furthermore this action >>likely occured from a JavaScript in which case you need to determine if >>this actually was something requested by a submit or not. You also need to >>know if an actual submit in a form was activated from JavaScript. >> >>The result is a mess which convolutes the code to make this happen. You >>have to somehow pass analysis information down to the layer at which the >>submission occurs and then activate a message back in the GUI to ask the >>user if this action was something the user really wanted to occur. I am >>also in doubt as to the reliability of the analysis made. For example, the >>press of a next button on a web site may not only bring you to a new page >>but it may also send privacy information back to the host system. This is >>something we may not want either do we stop this from occuring as well and >>how do we know when to do this or not? > >MN: hmnn, having done web software development, including Javascript >development, I have to disagree with the implied level of difficulty >in this operation. > >> >>Therefore I feel the repair of this "manhole", (good analogy), is the >>responsibility of the developer because this is an authoring usability >>issue. This problem may also as frustrating to non-disabled users as well. >> >>I am not saying this is a problem but it is a problem for all users and it >>is a nice feature to have for disabled users as it would be for >>non-disabled users. This is why it should be a P3. > >MN: agree this is a problem for "all users", but also agree it taps >PWD much more seriously, and merits a P2 level. > > > >> >>Rich >> >> >> >>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 >> >> >>Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>@w3.org on 04/25/2000 06:11:16 PM >> >>Sent by: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org >> >> >>To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org >>cc: >>Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Checkpoint 9.2 >> >> >> >>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 Wednesday, 26 April 2000 18:13:05 UTC