- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:52:03 -0500
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Response is JRG2: > At 01:02 PM 1/27/00 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote: > >Jon Gunderson wrote: > >> > >> Current techniques for 5.5: > >> > >> 1. @@This needs work and probably should be in the guidelines@@. The > >> exchange of information between user agents must keep pace with changes in > >> the content. It may be necessary to allow the user to configure the user > >> agent to pause before changes to content or the user interface so that an > >> assistive technology has time to react. > >> > >> JRG: Unless we have an example of how this would work I would like to see > >> it removed. We can add it to a future issues list for the document or > >> forwarded to the PF group, but I know off no technical way for AT and UA to > >> do this or how it would help assistive technology. This has been a > >> consistently difficult checkpoint for developers to understand and I think > >> this type of techniques suggestion will only add to the confusion on what > >> should be a simple checkpoint to understand. > > > >I disagree. I think the note indicates sufficiently that this concept > >needs fleshing out. > > JRG2: If a technique needs work at this point in the development of the > techniques document I think it should be given to interested working group > members as an action item for them to develop. When the validity of the > technique for accessibility is clearer to the working group it can then be > added to the techniques document. Until that time I think putting in > questionable techniques will cause unnecessary problems during the review > process. This would be the only technique I am aware of as marked as > "needs work" if included. IJ2: Up to now, techniques have not undergone explicit WG review before being included in the techniques document. I don't disagree with a policy where the WG would approve techniques before they are added, but we don't have such a policy today. I marked it as "needs work" not because it's any less ripe than other techniques, but because the ideas themselves are in discussion and I wanted to mark for myself that we needed to continue to develop these ideas. I did not want to use the issues list before going to CR. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 or 212 532-4767 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2000 13:52:11 UTC