- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:34:16 -0500
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote: > > What does checkpoint 1.1 actually require? > > It is not clear that this states a concrete and observable requirement. "All > user interface functionality but not input" sounds contradictory. A couple of comments 1) "Observable". There are a number of checkpoints known to be difficult to verify but that are nonetheless important to do. For these checkpoints, claimants will probably have to rely on claims from developers of support for "all" functionalities through "all" supported APIs. 2) The checkpoint is clearly meant to address the "big" functionalities offered by the user agent. For the very small funtionalities of how you actually enter text or move the cursor, the user agent is not required to simulate one input method with another input method. That's the exception case called out in 1.1. I don't think there's a contradiction there, only a narrowing of scope. - Ian > Checkpoint 9.4 is of some help in reducing the confusion. > > Al > -- > Usage in headers. Comments in response to the last call request for comments > have been classified S1, S2, or E based on the following rough scale: > > S1: Substantive matter of the first (highest) criticality or importance to the > mission of the document. The standard set is ineffective, the document is > self > contradictory, etc. > > S2: Substantive matter of a somewhat lower criticality. The document is hard > to comprehend, does not align well with related WAI documents, etc. > > E: Editorial matters. Not regarded as substantive. > > Re: > > User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 > > W3C Working Draft 23 October 2000 > > This version: > > [9]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/W > D-UAAG10-20001023 -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 11:34:24 UTC