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

Re: comments on UA for last call

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:27:09 -0400
Message-ID: <3AFC673D.1072ADD9@w3.org>
To: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi Mark,

Thanks for sending comments! My replies below preceded
by IJ:. My hope is that we can handle editorial comments
on the mailing list rather than use teleconference time
to discuss them. If anyone feels that the issues marked
as '[Editorial]' below are not editorial, please indicate so.

 - Ian

Reference document: I'm not sure. (Mark, can you clarify?)

The checkpoint numbers seem to line up with the 9 March draft:

> - does checkpoint 2.10, "Allow configuration not to render...."
> possibly fit better under Guideline 3, "Allow configuration not
> to render...." rather than under Guideline 2, "Ensure
> user....".?


IJ: Yes, it could go there. I have no strong feelings one way or
the other.

> - would a "note" under checkpoint 3.7 help to clarify why
> "images" are a P2, and not included in checkpoint 3.2 with audio,
> video, and animated images as P1 ?


IJ: Sure. The rationale is that moving visual informaion is
expected to be more distracting than static visual
information. An excess of visual information may causes problems
to some users with cognitive disabilities.

If people have additional rationale they would like included,
please reply.
> - i'm stuggling with having a concept as important as a
> Guideline, yet that concept doesn't have enough importance
> to have at least one priority 1 checkpoint (e.g., Guideline 5)

[Emotional] <grin>

IJ: I personally have no problem with the concept. <smile> We
created Guideline 5 as the result of a decision at the March
face-to-face meeting [1]. We moved the UI behavior checkpoints
there and, as it turns out, none of them are P1.  But since
Guidelines are almost exclusively there for the purposes of
organization, it doesn't bother me that there are no P1
checkpoints there.

In fact, it is actually a fair representation of the document
that user interface accessibility takes a slight back seat to
content accessibility. In particular, we made an explicit
decision at a teleconference (I don't have the URL handy) to not
make the same requirements for the chrome as we do for
content. Instead, we rely on system software guidelines
(checkpoint 7.3, P2) to cover issues like blinking in the user

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes
> - in Guideline 6, i do not know what is meant by the term
> "interoperable" APIs ?


IJ: I think the word "interoperable" can be deleted.
> - in checkpoint 6.2, which "user interface" is being referred to
> as allowing the user to modify content.  Is it the user agent user
> interface, or is it a user interface built within or from the
> content.  Is this distinction necessary and/or helpful?


IJ: The distinction is necessary and useful, which is why we have
an entry in the glossary for "user agent user interface", which
is used in checkpoints 1.3, 6.4, and 11.7.

However, in the case of 6.2, the term "user interface" is
intended: it doesn't matter which part of the user interface is
used to modify the content. The term "user interface" links to
the glossary and explains that it includes both user agent user
interface controls AND controls in content.
> - checkpoint 6.6, "Implement standard accessibility APIs. "
> is problemmatic for me.  I think the issue I have is, thinking as
> a developer, i'm asking "Implement standard accessibility
> APIs for what???".  In contrast, checkpoint 6.5 talks about
> using standard APIs to provide programmtic access to content,
> UI, etc..., while checkpoint 6.7 talks about using the operating
> env. standard APIs for the keyboard, etc.  Checkpoint 6.6 as
> written does not seem to have a "use it for what", if that makes
> sense.  

IJ: Yes, it does. 

> From an AT or UA developer point of view, any
> APIs related to providing improved accessibility might in
> fact be used in all (some more than others) nine of the other
> checkpoints under Guideline 6.  Isn't that more of what you
> really mean ?


IJ: "Accessibility APIs" are meant to include MSAA, the Java
Accessibility API, and any other API designed explicitly for the
purpose of improving accessibility. Does that make it clearer?

Added to the issues list as issue 472
> - Guideline 7 and Guideline 8 seem to overlap, they both
> use similar language (e.g., benefit accessibilty) Is there a
> chance to condense here, and roll the 2 checkpoints from
> Guideline 8 into 7?


IJ: They were intentionally split (fairly recently). Guideline 7
is about operating environment conventions, Guideline 8 about
conformance to specifications. People found it clearer to have
the split.
> - in checkpoint 9.2, it talks about sequential navigation in
> document order.  Is this a problem ?  Rendered order may not
> match document order, and/or are there any international
> layout concerns here?

IJ: What does rendered order mean in the general case (especially
in the CSS2 world of arbitrary positioning)? Visual rendering
based navigation may be very useful, but as a minimal
requirement, we cannot rely on that being well-defined (or
useful) in the general case.

It is true that we don't define "document order" in UAAG 1.0.  It
is my understanding that "document order" means "based on the DOM
tree". I don't know that a particular traversal is implied or
that we need to restrict implementation or a particular traversal
(e.g., preorder).

About interntionalization: I believe I asked Martin Dürst that
question, and I believe he indicated that there were not,
although I don't have any record of that discussion. However, I
believe that relying on the structure (and not the layout)
relieves us of some rendering issues: however the DOM tree is
constructed, the tree order is what is covered by 9.2, not
whether the content is rendered right-to-left or top-to-bottom,
> - in checkpoint 9.3, you allow the user to activate any explicitly
> associated input device events handlers as a P1, yet in checkpoint
> 9.5, you allow the user to query for a list of input device
> handlers as P2.  How can I know which input device handlers are
> available to activate until I do a query, yet 9.5 is lower priority.
> Is this a problem ?

[In the 9 April 2001 draft, these are checkpoints 1.2 and 9.4,
but the point is still valid.]


IJ: Added to the issues list as issue 473

I will ask the WG to reconfirm the priority decision.
> - in checkpoint 9.10, it talks about content only, yet the note
> refers the reader back to checkpoint 6.4, which is user agent
> user interface controls only ?

[Checkpoint 9.9 in the 9 April 2001 draft.]

IJ: I don't know why the cross-reference is there. I think it
should be deleted.

> - Guideline 12, issues already previously documented to this
> list.

I'll respond on that thread.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 18:27:10 UTC

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