W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Comments, rough notes

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:59:32 -0400
Message-ID: <3AE4C1E4.FCB02E47@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> I'll clean these up later, but I wanted to get them to the web
> now so I could point to them.

Thanks for sending comments, Charles. My comments below
preceded by IJ:.

 - Ian
> Related resources
> While techniques are informative only, it is expected that
> developers seeking to implement the document are at least
> familiar with that document before they start bringing questions
> to the working group. --So beef up the value a bit

IJ: Do you mean "Make the Techniques document better"? I agree,
and we have some ideas for doing so (profiles, test suites [0]). Do
you have more specific suggestions than "beef it up"? It's
already 150 printed pages.

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0040
> from 1.1:
> " No format allows authors to encode all of their knowledge in a
> way that a user agent can recognize. "- this is too strong, and
> reasonably likely to be untrue. Should be less based on an ideal
> model and more on practicalities.

IJ: I can soften the statement, but that would seem to make it
more practical and less ideal.
> s/physical disabilities/motor disabilities/

IJ: Actually, we explicitly chose "physical disabilities" over 
"motor disabilities" (since the 6 December 1999 draft [1]). Do
you have a compelling argument to change back?

> may not understand fluently the natural language of spoken
> content. These users are likely to benefit from the same visual
> rendering of text equivalents that make spoken language
> accessible to people with a hearing disability. -- this isn't a
> great example, since people with hearing disbilities are also
> among the people for whom text equivalents are not the most
> appropriate form.

IJ: Ok.
> 2.3 Aargh!! is it possible to rewrite it into smaller chunks?
> Provide access to all "contditional content" that is included in
> the tree by one of the following...  Provide access to related
> conditional content by one of the following...  (access according
> to spec is already covered by 2.1)

IJ: I will try to editorially simplify 2.3.
> How are 2.5 and 2.6 different?

IJ: Checkpoint 2.6 is referenced by 2.5, 4.4, and 4.5, so the WG
decided to make it its own checkpoint at the November
face-to-face meeting at AOL [2]. The configuration requirement of
2.5 is stronger than 2.3 (since it requires the UA to render
everything at once, so, for example, the query technique doesn't
satisfy 2.5).

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-346
> 5.3 what if the user refuses to open a new viewport? Is the
> ability to force content update to occur in the same viewport
> implied? (seems to be to me, but should be clearer please)
IJ: I think that if the user refuses, then the viewport doesn't open.
I don't think there's any need to have a requirement to force
content update since the user can always do an HTTP GET.

> 6.5 why different wording style from 6.{3,4}?

IJ: This was actually a conscious decision by me. The length of the
list in 6.5 ("content, user interface controls, selection,
content focus, and user interface focus") made the following
formulation awkward:

   "6.5 Provide programmatic alert of changes to content, user
   interface controls, selection, content focus, and user
   interface focus using standard APIs."

I tried 6.3 and 6.4 using the current 6.5 structure, but decided
against. The current 6.3 and 6.4 "front load" better.

> 11.1 and 11.2 content labels mean that it is possible to get to
> level A without letting the user know how to use keyboard control
> of content :(

IJ: I am not sure what you mean by "content labels" here. Do you mean
"priorities"? If so, I note that you already have an objection to
the priority of checkpoint 11.2 (which I forwarded in the last
call [3]).

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0014
> 11.4 tighten up conformance requirement ('most' is a bit vague,
> but it is even so only in informative note...)

IJ: The informative Note is there to encourage more than the minimal
requirement of the checkpoint, which seems pretty clear: 

  "For each functionality in the set required by checkpoint 11.5,
  allow the user to configure a single-key binding (i.e., one key
  press performs the task, with zero modifier keys). If the
  number of physical keys on the keyboard is less than the number
  of functionalities required by by checkpoint 11.5, allow
  single-key bindings for as many of those functionalities as
> 12.1 "ensure the documentation is available in at least one form
> that..." to distinguish between having WCAG-AA doc for myBrowser
> 4.0 but not version 5.0...

IJ: I can change "product" to "user agent". Then, that would be more
consistent with this statement from the beginning of section 2:

   "The statement of the checkpoint is one or more requirements
   that must be satisfied by the user agent (i.e., the "subject
   of the claim) for the purposes of conformance. The "user
   agent" may consist of more than one software component, as
   explained in the section on well-formed conformance claims."

Since the conformance claim must be about a specific version of
the product, you wouldn't be able to "get away" with a version of
the documentation for a different user agent.
> 3.1 conformance requirements come from checkpoints, plus claiming
> conformance according to this section. (Explicitly?)

IJ: I don't find "according to this section" in 3.1. Can you explain
more of what you mean, or explain more specifically what seems
ambiguous to you in section 3.1?

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 19:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:30 UTC