- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 12:03:45 -0400
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Responses in JRG: > > > > 3. All views need to be accessible > > > >I don't think this is true. Some views could not be accessible, > >as long as the user can get equivalent functionality in other views. > >Just like for the documentation: some documentation may be inaccessible > >as long as at least one version is. > > JRG: I think saying that all views do not need to be accessible is > problematic. A developer could say that the source view is the accessible > view for their application and I don't need to make any other views > accessible. I think we need to have a requirement that all views are > accessible. I don't think I agree. Maybe part of the problem is whether we're talking about "view" or "viewport". > > > 4. A source view is one way to make content available, but not the only way > > > it should be made available > > > >This is a comment on 2. > > > > > 5. Access to the attributes of an element is useful and should be easy for > > > the user to obtain. > > > >This is a special case of 2. > > JRG: AG and JW think this is a critical need. Others on telecons have said > this is important too. I agree though that most people will not know what > to use it for. I think this is covered by access to content. Just indicate as a technique that people could select an element and query attributes. [snip] > > > > > Checkpoint 2.1b Allow the user substitute alternative equivalents for > > > primary content in views where alternative equivalents are not rendered by > > > default. [Priority 1] > > > > > > Note: For example, substituting the ALT text associated with an image > > > and/or a link to the LONGDESC resource of an image for the original image. > > > >I think "substitute" is too strong. Is it sufficient to provide > >alternative content in addition to (e.g., in a tool tip) primary > >content? Can we just say "Ensure that alternatives are available"? > > JRG: I used the word substitute to emphasize that the alternative must be > in the same view as the primary content. Substitute may not be the best > word, I would encourage other suggestions that make clear the requirement > of rendering the alternative equivalents in the same view as primary content. Ensure that all equivalents are available in the same view. > > "Allow the user to specify that text transcripts, > > collated text transcripts, captions, and auditory > > descriptions be rendered at the same time as the > > associated auditory and visual tracks. Respect > > author-specified synchronization cues during rendering." > > > > > Checkpoint 2.1d Provide synchronized views of content. [Priority 2] > > > > > > Note: If a user agent provides more than one view of content, allow the > > > user to synchronize the views. For example, when an element is selected in > > > > > one view and the user switches to a source or a DOM tree view of the > > > resource, the portion of the resource associated with the selected element > > > is also selected in the source or DOM tree view. > > > >I don't think we should add this checkpoint to the > >guidelines at this time. Synchronized views are undoubtedly useful, but > >this is a brand-new requirement. I'm pretty sure this is covered > >in the techniques document. Can we just consider it a technique? > > JRG: This seems to be a requirement from the group. But if the group > doesn't want it, we can move it to the techniques document. I hadn't heard a requirement for two or more synchronized views. > > > Checkpoint 2.1e Provide access to only the attributes of a selected > > > element. [Priority 3] > > > > > > Note: In some cases the user needs access to the attributes of a selected > > > element to determine the purpose or relationship of the element to other > > > elements in a resource. > > > > > > This is priority 3 since it is a convenience function. The information > > > would be required to be available through the user interface in 2.1a and > > > partially supported in 2.1d. AG and JW have said this maybe a common > > > technique for XML, until more is understood about how XML will be used and > > > made accessible. > > > >I don't think this will be useful to many people in practice. How > >many users know that an attribute is, let alone attributes of an XML > >application they've never used before? This is a special case of > >checkpoint 2.1a that I don't think needs its own checkpoint. I propose > >instead that we suggest techniques that ensure that this is done. > > JRG: I agree, but many people have said this information is very valuable > to the few users with disabilities that understand it. I still think this should only be a technique. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 12:03:52 UTC