Re: (Action) Issue 394: Proposed revision to checkpoint 2.1

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> This includes a requirement for the unprocessed source. I am arguing that
> that is not necessary at a P1 level - if we want it as a requirement we
> should make it seperate, and P2.

Here's my reasoning why I think it's important to move the
source view (or similar) requirement up to the checkpoint level.
While this may seem like a new requirement, it is, in my 
opinion, an old, buried requirement.

We require that all content be available through the user
interface. We have also said that, because some users may
not be able to access content when that content has
been processed according to specification 
(e.g., scripts or style sheets), we require them to have
access to the raw, unprocessed content. I think that
we mean more than "a source view is probably a good idea
as a last ditch solution". I think that we have meant:
the user *must* be able to look at the source in case
of emergency.

I don't think that requiring a source view formally
is a heavy burden since all user agents I am aware
of do this anyway. 

 - Ian

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
>   Charles and Ian,
>   We may be able to say something like this in Ian's proposal:
> 
>   <NEW 2.1>
>   2.1 Make all content available through the user interface.
>   Provide access to the unprocessed source information in addition to other
>   views. [P1]
> 
>   Note: Users must have access to the entire document object through
>   the user interface, including recognized equivalents, attributes,
>   style sheets, etc. This checkpoint does not require that all content
>   be available in every viewport. Access to the source information is an
>   important part of a solution for providing access to content, but is
>   not a sufficient solution on its own for all content. See guideline
>   5 for more information about programmatic access to content.
> 
>   </NEW 2.1>
> 
>   This implies a source view, but allows the developer other options.
> 
>   JOn
> 
>   At 08:05 PM 1/6/2001 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>   >This is two seperate requirements.
>   >
>   >In the past, (e.g. at the Princeton face to face meeting) I have argued that
>   >a source view is not actually necessary.  Earlier versions of Amaya did not
>   >make the source available, although they did provide a structured view of the
>   >entire document object, and I believe that this would have satisfied the
>   >actual requirement.
>   >
>   >So I propose the following text:
>   >
>   >   <MyNew2.1>
>   >
>   >2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. [P1]
>   >
>   >Note: The user must have access to the entire document object (including
>   >recognized equivalents, attributes, style sheets, etc.) through the user
>   >interface. This allows the user to view content (markup, style sheets,
>   >scripts, etc.) after it has been processed. A document source view alone does
>   >not satisfy this checkpoint. This checkpoint does not require that all
>   >content be available in every viewport. See guideline 5 for more information
>   >about programmatic access to content.
>   >
>   >   </MyNew2.1>
>   >
>   >Essentially I have cut the requirement to have a source view per se - it is a
>   >useful technique and should be included in the techniques. But if there is
>   >access already to the document object, a source view is not actually
>   >necessary, so shouldn't be required by a checkpoint. Nor is it sufficient to
>   >meet the checkpoint (which the checkpoint already says).
>   >
>   >cheers
>   >
>   >Charles McCN
>   >
>   >On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>   >
>   >   Hello,
>   >
>   >   Per my action item from the 30 November 2000 teleconference [1],
>   >   please consider this proposed change to checkpoint 2.1 to resolve
>   >   issue 394 [2]. The reviewer wrote:
>   >
>   >     "I feel the description of 2.1 is too vague on exactly what portions
>   >     of the content are satisfied by providing a document source
>   >     view. You say it's good enough for some things, but not everything,
>   >     and give a few examples but no clear guidance on how to extrapolate
>   >     to other cases."
>   >
>   >   >From the 29 Dec 2000 draft:
>   >
>   >   <OLD 2.1>
>   >   2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. [P1]
>   >
>   >     Note: Users must have access to the entire document object through
>   >     the user interface, including recognized equivalents, attributes,
>   >     style sheets, etc. This checkpoint does not require that all content
>   >     be available in every viewport. A document source view is an
>   >     important part of a solution for providing access to content, but is
>   >     not a sufficient solution on its own for all content. See guideline
>   >     5 for more information about programmatic access to content.
>   >   </OLD 2.1>
>   >
>   >   Comments and observations:
>   >
>   >   1) If a document source view alone is not a sufficient solution, then
>   >   Notepad cannot conform to UAAG 1.0. (In any case, whether Notepad can
>   >   conform at P2 depends on whether plain text meets the requirements of
>   >   checkpoint 6.2.). I will assume for the moment that we don't want a
>   >   user agent that consists only of a source view to conform.
>   >
>   >   2) I think that 2.1 needs to state clearly that:
>   >
>   >     a) Most content will be used as rendered according to specification.
>   >        This means that in general, users will not read CSS style sheets
>   >        or scripts, but will experience their effects after processing.
>   >
>   >     b) 2.1 also requires a source view for viewing unprocessed content,
>   >        because there are cases where that is the only way for the user
>   >        to get information.
>   >
>   >   3) It is possible to claim conformance for a user agent that doesn't
>   >   feature a source view in conjunction with Notepad. [I don't mean to
>   >   pick on Notepad <grin> - I mean any source-viewing tool here.] There
>   >   is no requirement in UAAG 1.0 that the two pieces of software must be
>   >   "integrated" to satisfy the requirements of the document.
>   >
>   >   So, I propose making the document source view requirement more
>   >   explicit in the checkpoint:
>   >
>   >
>   >    - Ian
>   >
>   >   [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364
>   >   [2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#394
>   >   [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20001229/
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >--
>   >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>   >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>   >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>   >until 6 January 2001 at:
>   >W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>   >France

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

Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 23:35:43 UTC