Re: revision to 7.6 & priority levels of 8.4 & 8.5

aloha, jon!

thank you for your reply, for considering my proposal as a minority 
opinion, and for your advice...  i will track this thread, and draft 
something more formal as soon as appropriate (read: as soon as i hear from 
others on it, or when i steal a spare moment)

thanks, too, to ian, for re-subscribing me to the list,
         gregory.

At 09:38 AM 9/27/00 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Gregory,
>I am going to consider your proposal to raise the priority levels of 8.4 
>and 8.5 as a minority opinion, since changes in priority of these 
>checkpoints was not raised during PR.  I will only bring it back before 
>the group as issue if a significant number of other working group members 
>also feel similarly.  I ENCOURAGE working group members to respond to this 
>thread for there support or opposition to Gregory's proposal.
>
>As a minority opinion, it will be forwarded with the document to last call 
>and proposed recommendation with document.  Although I would suggest to 
>strength your case with the director and other reviewers to explain why 
>this opinion was not included as a minority opinion in the previous last 
>call and proposed recommendation periods.
>
>Jon
>
>
>At 01:24 PM 9/26/2000 -0400, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>>aloha, all!
>>
>>based on the discussion at today's supplemental teleconference, i would 
>>like to propose the following, which i believe to be in line with the 
>>consensus reached at the 26 september 2000 telecon
>>
>>BEGIN PROPOSED REVISION TO 7.6
>>7.6 Allow the user to navigate efficiently to and among important 
>>structural elements identified by the author. For markup languages with 
>>known semantics, allow forward and backwards sequential navigation to 
>>important structural elements. For other markup languages, allow at least 
>>forward and backwards sequential navigation of the document object, in 
>>document order.
>>
>>    Note: Structured navigation of headings, tables, forms,
>>    lists, etc., is most effective when available in
>>    conjunction with a configurable view. Therefore, the user
>>    should be able to configure and control which structural
>>    navigational elements he or she wishes to move to, as
>>    outlined in Checkpoint 8.5. User agents should follow
>>    operating system conventions for indicating navigation
>>    progress (e.g., selection or content focus).
>>
>>    Note: In HTML 4 [HTML4], the list of important elements
>>    is: A, ADDRESS, BUTTON, FIELDSET, DD, DIV, DL, DT, FORM,
>>    FRAME, H1-H6, IMAGE, INPUT, LI, MAP, OBJECT, OL, OPTGROUP,
>>    OPTION, P, TABLE, TEXTAREA, and UL. In SMIL 1.0 [SMIL],
>>    the list of important elements is: a, anchor, par, seq,
>>    and switch. In SVG 1.0 [SVG], the important elements are
>>    a and g.
>>END PROPOSED REVISION TO 7.6
>>
>>additionally, i would propose to raise the priority level of 8.4:
>>
>>quote
>>8.4 Make available to the user an "outline" view of content, composed of 
>>text labels for important structural elements (e.g., heading text, table 
>>titles, form titles, etc.). The set of important structural elements is 
>>the same required by checkpoint 7.6. [Priority 2]
>>    Note: This checkpoint is meant to allow the user to simplify the
>>    view of content by hiding some content selectively. For example,
>>    for each frame in a frameset, provide a table of contents composed
>>    of headings (e.g., the H1 - H6 elements in HTML) where each entry
>>    in the table of contents links to the heading in the document. This
>>    checkpoint does not require that the outline view be navigable, but
>>    this is recommended; refer to checkpoint 7.6. For those elements
>>    that do not have associated text titles or labels, the user agent
>>    should use generate a brief text label (e.g., from content, the
>>    element type, etc.).
>>unquote
>>
>>from priority 2 to Priority 1; as for checkpoint 8.5
>>
>>quote
>>8.5 Allow the user to configure and control the outline view of 
>>checkpoint 8.4 to include and exclude element types. [Priority 3]
>>    Note: For example, allow the user to configure the level of detail
>>    of the outline. Refer also to checkpoint 8.4 and checkpoint 5.4.
>>unquote
>>
>>i propose to raise from Priority 3 to Priority 2
>>
>>why?  not only is it important to provide a pseudo-gestalt view for 
>>anyone incapable of perceiving the spatial/graphical relationships 
>>between components of the page without having to listen to the page in 
>>its entirety, it is essential that such a user be able to make practical 
>>use of the outline/pseudo-gestalt view.  moreover, it endows the user 
>>with the ability to dip a toe into the water to see whether or not it is 
>>(a) safe to
>>swim, (b) whether or not the page is the proper pool in which to dive, 
>>and (c) whether or not repair needs to be performed upon the page with 
>>which the user is attempting to interact.
>>
>>gregory
>>------------------------------------------------
>>The optimist thinks that this is the best of all
>>possible worlds; the pessimist knows it is.
>>------------------------------------------------
>>Gregory J. Rosmaita     <unagi69@concentric.net>
>>       Webmaster & Minister of Propaganda
>>The Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group of
>>the New York City Metropolitan Area (VICUG NYC)
>>      <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
>>------------------------------------------------
>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>MC-574
>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
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 12:13:19 UTC