- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 08:42:31 -0600
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I agree with Ian. I think that we should have a specific requirement for access to the document source. While a document source view is the most common practice of providing access to the source, I think the concept of a document source view is to provide access to the source information. If there are other ways to do this than a text editor view we can put them in the techniques document. Charles would you be willing to submit a technique on how Amaya provides a document source view? Jon At 11:35 PM 1/8/2001 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote: >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 Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services MC-574 College of Applied Life Studies University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: (217) 244-5870 Fax: (217) 333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Tuesday, 9 January 2001 09:40:51 UTC