Re: Belated HTML WG last-call comments to User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Steven,

Thank you for sending comments. My replies preceded by IJ:
below.

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> Checkpoint 2.9: "Allow configuration to render all conditional content
> automatically." If the <object> element of HTML is included under
> 'conditional content', then this checkpoint would change the semantics of
> the <object> element, which is designed to select one of a number of
> options.

IJ: I will add this as issue 513
  http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#513

The model we are using is basically this:
 - First, provide access by following specifications (2.1).
 - If specifications don't say what to do to provide access to
   conditional content, use one of the following mechanisms (cf.
   checkpoint 2.3).
 - If our requirements *contradict* specifications (that *prohibit*)
   access to content, then either:
       a) for W3C specifications, WAI PF has not done its job.
       b) for non-W3C specifications we should let them know,
          but we may not be able to do much.

   And in this case, we will allow conformance to UAAG 1.0
   if 2.1 is not satisfied in order to satisfy the other
   requirements of UAAG 1.0. [The WG has agreed to this as well
   as a result of last call review.]

I note that as a result of issue 475 [2], we will be making
some clarifications about 2.9: the intention is not to have
all content in one viewport at the same time, only to allow
the user automatic access to content under *some* configuration.

[2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#475

Still, I think additional discussion is necessary so that we
are exactly sure how a case like OBJECT is to be handled.

 
> Checkpoint 5.4: repetition of the word 'event'.

IJ: Ok.
 
> Checkpoints 6.1 to 6.4 DOM
> As these sections stand it reads as if a UA is *required to* support DOM,
> not "if the document has an API, that API should be/include DOM". We do not
> understand the requirement that forces a UA to include a scripting interface
> if it is to be even level A compliant, but maybe this is just a lack of
> clarity of the text.

IJ: As Jon points out in his email, DOM is required for Level A
conformance. We have received a lot of comments, such as "What about
kiosks or environments where there is no communication with 
assistive technologies?" to which we answered (in section 1.2
of the document): we are not aiming at those user agents for UAAG 1.0.

Nor are we concerned in UAAG 1.0 with mobile devices or other
environments where DOM implementation would be a heavy footprint burden.

We are requiring the DOM so that assistive technologies have access
to content in a manner that allows them to track changes to
content in a structured and efficient manner.
 
> Guideline 9: Navigation. If you are looking at a frameset, and only one
> frame has a scroll bar, you shouldn't need to have to select that frame in
> order to do a [page down]. So it would be good to have a checkpoint that
> says that if an action is obvious/unambiguous in the context, it should not
> be necessary to have to select the only viewport to which it could apply.

That doesn't seem like an accessibility requirement, so I'm not
sure that it should be a checkpoint. The accessibility requirement
would be: if the user agent furnishes a mechanism to some users
for scrolling content, then that mechanism must be operable
through the keyboard, etc.


On a related note:

As part of issue 491 [3], we have resolved that the user agent
doesn't have to give a viewport focus unless the viewport contains
content that has enabled elements in it (i.e., if the user can't
interact with the content, then the user doesn't need to be able to
move focus around that content). 





[3] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#491

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 13:42:56 UTC