RE: Instruction and Assessment

I did not elaborate upon a "second follow-up thought" but your comments seem
to lead right into it. See comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:01 AM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
> Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
> 
> 
> "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > 
> > One follow-up thought.
> > 
> > Perhaps one way to think about this issue is that the User 
> Agent should "by
> > default" not restrict access to any content. If some 
> content uses the user
> > agent to restrict access to certain content (or even if the 
> user agent makes
> > it easy for the content author to restrict access) to some 
> content (e.g.,
> > for security or other special purposes or applications) 
> then that is okay.
> 
> I think that amounts to saying: "conform to specifications". 
> Otherwise,
> if a user agent haphazardly denies access to some content, 
> it's probably
> just a bug.

EH: Very good point. When we say:

"2.1 Make all content available through the user interface"

don't we really just mean "conform to specifications"?

That is, aren't we really saying, "Show through the user interface that
which, according to specfications, should be shown through the user
interface"?

And if so, why do we really need to say it at all, since conformance to
specifications is an assumption underlying the whole document?

If this is the case, then the first sentence of checkpoint 2.1 could be
deleted. 

In that case, we would have the following:

New:

"2.1 Provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of the text portions of
content. This is only required for formats defined by specifications that
the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"  
Old (26 January 2001):

Old:

"2.1 Make all content available through the user interface. As part of
meeting this requirement, provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of
the text portions of content. This is only required for formats defined by
specifications that the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"

EH:

> > It is not the responsibility of user agent developers to forbid such
> > activity, but rather to ensure that in the default 
> situation, the user would
> > have access to all content. Obviously, the realization of 
> full access will
> > be dependent on authors developing content that permits 
> such access (e.g.,
> > following WCAG 1.0, other accessibility conventions, etc.).
> > 
> > Isn't this approach in keeping with our delineation of 
> responsibilities? Do
> > we lose anything by taking this approach?
> 
IJ:

> What does 'taking this approach' mean exactly?
> 

EH: See above and below.

>  - Ian
>

EH: 
> > I suppose that such an approach
> > impinges on our UAAG 1.0 checkpoints insofar as user agents 
> > product content (one checkpoint).
> 
> 
EH:

Here is a revision of the checkpoint that pertains to content produced by
the user agent.

New:

"1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert, notification, etc.)
that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent user interface has
AN AVAILABLE text equivalent. [Priority 1]"

Old (26 January 2001):

"1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert, notification, etc.)
that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent user interface has
a text equivalent. [Priority 1]"

Comment on revised checkpoint 1.3. This change makes explicit that the text
equivalent must be available to the user. 

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

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 12:48:11 UTC