- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:36:42 -0400
- To: Greg Lowney <greglo@microsoft.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,
I've reviewed Greg Lowney's comments [1] and my
responses to his comments [2]. Here is a summary
of how we have addressed (or not addressed) Greg's
issues. We addressed a number of them at the 29 March
2001 teleconference [3].
- Ian
Checkpoint numbers adjusted for 4 April 2001 draft:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010404/
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0538
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0549
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555
=========================================
Editorial still to do
=========================================
I intend to incorporate these editorial and techniques changes into
the next draft (which will be the last call draft).
1) Issue 415: Fix circular definition of enabled element/activation.
Status: Whoops! I forgot to fix this in the most recent draft.
Action IJ: Fix definitions before going to last call.
2) Issue 440: Add Greg's list of additional 9.7 search requirements
to the techniques document.
Action IJ: Add these before going to last call.
Note: The WG has not chosen to include additional search
requirements as part of the minimal requirements of checkpoint 9.7.
Techniques:
<GL>
(2) Should add the option or mechanism to start search from the
beginning of the document rather than from the current selection or
focus. There is no easy way to do this in IE today. Or is there
already a requirement to provide an easy way to move the "focus" or
start of search to the beginning or end of the document.
(3) Should provide distinct alerts for the three situations listed;
the user should be able to easily tell whether they have searched
all the content, or whether they merely reached the end of the
document and now need to wrap to the beginning.
(4) There are a lot of additional variations that could be included
as priority 3. For example, should add the ability to search
backwards through content, possibly as a priority 3
checkpoint. That is part of forgiveness, allowing the user to avoid
having to start over if they accidentally go one search too far.
(5) If the user has not indicated a start position for the search,
the search should start from the beginning of that portion in the
viewport (as far as the user agent is concerned-it does not have to
deal with whether portions of its window is obscured by other
applications or operating systems windows).
(6) Should ideally provide the option of searching through
alternative representations (such as ALT text) and source (e.g. you
know the page was found by a search engine looking for a specific
term, but normal search cannot find it, it would be nice to have it
inform you that it found the text in metadata or other non-rendered
portions of the source. This would be lower priority.
</GL>
3) Add rationale to checkpoint 4.10 about configuration of
distinct audio sources:
<GL>
However, note that there are at least three good reasons for
strongly recommending that all sounds are independently
configurable: (1) sounds which are not synchronized may end up
playing simultaneously, and (2) if the user cannot anticipate when
a sound will play they cannot adjust the global volume control at
appropriate times to affect this sound, and (3) it is extremely
inconvenient for the user to have to frequently adjust global
volume to accommodate sounds about to be played, especially when
this leads them to frequently switch back and forth between
different volume settings.
</GL>
=========================================
Working Group has adopted Greg's proposal
=========================================
1) Issue 393: Add requirement to G6 checkpoints that if no
standard API available, require some API.
[Originally about checkpoint 6.6]
Status: The WG resolved to require publicly documented API
at the 29 March teleconf.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555
2) Issue 426: Checkpoint 11.4: Single-key requirement not clear.
Status: This has been fixed in the 4 April draft. The minimal
requirement is that the user must be able to specify single-key
bindings for at least the required default set of functionalities
(specified in checkpoint 11.5).
3) Issue 395: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: Don't say "activate placeholder".
Status: Different language is employed in the 4 April draft:
"allow the user to view the original author-supplied content
associated with each placeholder."
4) Issue 399: Checkpoint 4.6 (Editorial)
Status: The 4 April 2001 draft says "at least the range of
positions" per Greg's suggestion.
5) Issue 432: Blinking images checkpoint deleted.
Status: The Techniques document suggests that the first
frame of an animated image be used to create the placeholder.
6) Issues 413, 435: For content or user agent or both?
Status: The 4 April 2001 draft includes labels to indicate
the scope of each checkpoint.
============================================================
Working Group took into account Greg's proposal in some form,
but did not adopt the proposed requirement.
============================================================
1) Issue 414: Reverse navigation is P1 requirement for 9.2.
[Was checkpoint 7.3.]
Status: The WG did not add this as a requirement for 9.2,
but suggests ("should") that reverse navigation also
be implemented.
============================================================
Working Group should discuss this proposal, but not before
going to last call.
============================================================
1) Checkpoint 10.2: Proposal to make default configuration requirements
P2 and override requirements P1.
Status: The Working Group has not considered this. We do the
opposite today, and I think Greg's proposal is better. I am
tempted to pursue this as an improvement to the UAAG 1.0,
but it would involve changing a number or checkpoint priorities
(essentially flipping them). The most compelling aspect of
Greg's argument is that you don't know that a default configuration
will be accessible to some users. So you can't put a priority on
it. You can put a higher priority on the override ability.
=====================================================
Working Group has not discussed the proposal recently,
but has decided in the past not to do this.
=====================================================
Note: Issues that might go on the "future features" list [2]
are marked with [Future].
[2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-new.html
1) Issue 418: Checkpoint 9.7: Include search on conditional
content that has not been rendered.
[Was checkpoint 7.5]
Status: The WG has limited the search requirement to
rendered content only to avoid confusing the user.
[Future]
2) Issue 429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying
preferences.
Status: We don't know of any APIs and we have no implementation
experience. (I note that CC/PP might be useful for this.)
[Future]
3) Issue 442: Checkpoint 11.3: Does this include default
mouse click behavior?
[Was checkpoint 9.4 ]
Status: The WG maintains that this is a P2 requirement. Also,
the WG notes that device-independent operation is covered by
checkpoint 1.1., so no need to require cross-device override
in this checkpoint.
4) Issue 396 new requirement: Allow the user to override absolute
values.
Status: We did not have a technical reason for not adding this
requirement. It was simply time to stop adding requirements.
[Future]
5) Issue 403: Checkpoint 4.12: Add a requirement to override
author-supplied speech rate changes.
Status: Our technical arguments for not including such
a requirement:
1) If speech engine allows user override, that's the speech
engine's functionality, not the UA's.
2) We don't require content transformations to strip out
author-supplied rate changes before sending to the speech
engine.
Greg thinks this feasible.
[Future]
6) Issue 435: Checkpoints 4.13-4.15: For content only or also UI?
Status: The WG decided that most of the requirements of this
document would be about content only (except where explicitly
indicated as being for the user agent or both). There was a
conscious decision by the WG to *not* require everything for the
UI that we require for content. One reason was that we expect
checkpoint 7.3 to cover many of these requirements.
[Future]
7) Issue 441: New requirement for 10.6: Same or different domain?
Status: The WG has decided not to include this as a minimal
requirement.
[Future]
8) Issue 438: Include direct navigation requirements.
Status: Direct navigation requirements are covered in
part by keyboard binding requirements. Other than that,
the WG did not add any direct navigation requirements
because the combination of navigation to enabled elements
only (checkpoint 9.6), search (9.7), and structure navigation
(9.8) was considered a more general approach to the problem.
[Future]
9) Issue 400 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to
sources synchronized to play simultanously?
Status: The WG did not choose to add a P3 checkpoint
for independent configuration of all sound sources. I
proposed that we change "may" to "should" in the Note, but
there has not been followup:
"The user agent should satisfy this checkpoint by allowing the user
to control independently the volumes of all distinct audio
sources.
10) Issue 406: Checkpoint 5.1: Lower to Priority 3
Status: The Working Group felt that the orientation problems were
significant enough that this checkpoint (now 5.1) should remain a
priority 2 checkpoint. Greg's additional requirements are
covered by checkpoints 5.3 adn 5.6.
=================================================
Ian responded to Greg's comments with explanation
=================================================
1) Issue 409: Checkpoint 5.3: What is consequence if frames
are not opened?
Status: The requirement is actually to prevent new viewports from
opening (i.e., more than alert) and to allow the user to get them
later. Ian raised the issue of what happens if the user chooses not
to open a viewport during a timed presentation?
[Future]
2) Issue 430: Checkpoint 3.2: Why is quantity of information
more important for images than for text?
Status: Ian commented that his understanding is that there is a
difference to some users with cognitive disabilities between
visually displayed images/graphics and visually displayed text.
==============================
Open concern expressed by Greg
==============================
1) Issue 389: I am still concerned that there may be places where the
Note text adds details that apparently will be taken as a legally
binding extension to the checkpoint wording itself, and how examples
given in Techniques can confuse things by not distinguishing examples
from recommendations.
Status: Please indicate any examples you think are problematic.
===========================================
Issues where there was sufficient agreement
===========================================
1) Issue 392 (though checkpoint 1.4 no longer exists).
2) Issue 398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need
definition of "not recognized as style"
3) Issue 407: Checkpoint 5.6: Include requirement to
control automatic closing of viewports
Status: Greg's requirements are covered by checkpoints
5.6 and 7.3.
4) Issue 424: Do author-specified
shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input?
Status: Yes (as long as the UA can recognize them).
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2001 13:36:56 UTC