Re: Proposal for Issue WD#180 changing priority of Checkpoint 10.8 on configuring graphical controls

Following my action item I am still trying to solicit further feedback from
people who have more expertise in the area. I expect to have a couple of
further suggestions with regards to this area, but I am not sure of the best
way for the working group to deal with them - I leave that to the chair in
the first instance.

Charles McCN

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > 
  > I recommend being able to show/hide controls be a P2 requirement.
  
  
  Hi Charles,
  
  Please indicate to what extent you recommend this. We resolved
  all our open issues last Thursday and are trying to move the 
  document forward. Are you proposing a new checkpoint?
  
   - Ian
  
  
  > Not having
  > to tab through them will make life somewhat easier. In addition Jonathan
  > Chetwynd has writen in the context of search engines that a major problem for
  > people with Copgnitive disabilities is knowing where to enter something. He
  > recommends the Google engine because the inteerface is relatively sparse and
  > junk-free (unlike this email, I realise) but says he still works with people
  > who get confudsed between the input box and the box where you input a URI (I
  > note that many browsers do allow this to be hidden, and often the
  > toolbar(s) as well.
  > 
  > Charles McCN
  > 
  > On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Jon Gunderson wrote:
  > 
  >   I recommend that checkpoint 10.8 "Allow the user to configure the
  >   arrangement of graphical user agent user interface controls." remain at
  >   Priority 3.  It is not that I don't think it is important, but we have not
  >   identified the core requirements that are definitely priority 2 items.
  >   This is reflected in the 13 January telecon where there were groups of
  >   people who though the checkpoint was a priority 2, some who though it was
  >   priority 3 and others who were not sure which priority.  Denis Anson's
  >   request to Alan Cantor produced an eloquent response on the need for
  >   configuration, but no specific recommendations that could be formed into
  >   checkpoint requirements.  So until there is a specific proposal on core
  >   requirements at a priority level 2 I suggest that we resolve to leave this
  >   at priority 3 so the group can move on to other issues.    Minority opinons
  >   can be attached to the checkpoint for review during Candidate
  >   Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation and by the W3C Director.
  > 
  >   Thanks,
  >   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
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > --
  > Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
  > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
  > 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia
  
  -- 
  Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
  Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
  Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia

Received on Sunday, 23 January 2000 12:39:17 UTC