- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:12:41 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Ian Jacobs wrote: > > Hello, > > Issue 195 [1] states that reviewers of the Candidate Recommendation [2] > had difficulties understanding the wording of checkpoint 1.5: > > <BLOCKQUOTE> > 1.5 Ensure that the user interface provides information through > redundant output modes. [Priority 1] > </BLOCKQUOTE> Working group comments to my previous proposal suggest that we need to reach a common understanding of the purpose of this checkpoint before a rewrite will help. Here are pieces of my understanding of the requirement intended for 1.5: 1) We are expressing a user-interface requirement, not a programmatic access requirement. Checkpoint 5.2 already requires programmatic access to user interface controls. 2) I don't think 1.5 is meant to require a text equivalent for each message to the user. I think that text is a useful technique that enables different output modalities. Note that programmatic access to UI controls is covered by checkpoint 5.2 3) I don't think that the requirement is for a user agent to provide a user interface controls, say, both graphically and through audio (but not speech if speech is not supported). So what is this requirement supposed to say? A previous incarnation of the checkpoint (from the Last Call draft http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105/) suggests that it's really about messages through the UI: <LAST CALL> 1.5 Ensure that all messages to the user (e.g., informational messages, warnings, errors, etc.) are available through all output device APIs used by the user agent. </LAST CALL> How about this: <NEW PROPOSAL> 1.5 Ensure that user agent-initiated messages to the user (e.g., informational messages, warnings, error messages, etc.) are available through all output channels supported by the user interface. </NEW PROPOSAL> Notes: 0) I'd rather not talk about output device API. 1) Applicability still applies here. 2) I've limited the scope slightly (perhaps uselessly) to those messages initiated by the user agent. I'm not particularly wedded to that bit of the proposal. 3) The note afterwards would be the same as the one below in the OLD PROPOSAL. - Ian [1] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#195 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-UAAG10-20000128 <OLD PROPOSAL> > Therefore I propose this clarification: > > <BLOCKQUOTE> > 1.5 Ensure that the user interface presents information through > more than one output mechanism. > > (Note afterwards): > For example, alert the user to an event with a graphical > cue, and an audio cue, and a text message on the status bar. > Refer also to checkpoint 5.4. > </BLOCKQUOTE> > > Also, we can add to the techniques document that the user may want > to configure the output modes. </OLD PROPOSAL> -- 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 Monday, 28 February 2000 19:12:44 UTC