Re: Contradictory/confusing requirements wording

So an alternative would be to split this into three requirements, and give
the pointer device and voice input bits input-modality labels.

Chaals

On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >
  > I liked having the conformance section at the beginning of the document. IT
  > gives a simple way of explaining what needs to be read when you are going
  > through it, and makes it clear that conformance is something with meaning,
  > not just an afterthought. (All the ordering stuff should just be editiroial,
  > but in practice it isn't necessarily. So there's my preferences).

  We got complaints that people had to wade through the conformance
  section before they got to the requirements. So it was moved
  to the back.

  I like Eric's proposal to have a brief statement about conformance
  up front, and the full section in the back.

  > As for 1.1 how about something like
  >    1.1 Ensure that the user can operate the user agent fully
  >        through keyboard input alone. If the user agent supports input through
  >        pointer devices or voice, ensure that the user can operate
  >        the user agent fully through each of these methods alone.

  I don't think this works.

  That's what the document used to say. Then we got issue 390 [1],
  where the reviewer said "This punishes me because it says that if
  I implement the mouse at all, the user must be able to do everything
  through the mouse alone." At the AOL face-to-face meeting [2], we
  decided that the UA didn't have to do everything through pointing
  device or voice input unless conformance was sought for those
  input devices.

  So instead of saying "if the UA supports input through voice and
  pointing device", you would have to say "if the UA seeks to
  conform for voice and pointing device", but no other requirement
  in the document talks about conformance to itself.

   - Ian

  [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#390
  [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345



  > Chaals
  >
  > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Hansen, Eric wrote:
  >
  >   Maybe there is a way to have a summary of the that key conformance bit early
  >   (and perhaps even repeated) in order to address the issue that Aaron has
  >   pointed out. Maybe even go through an example, something like pieces of the
  >   conversation that Ian and Aaron have had. I am not excited about bring the
  >   whole conformance section up to the beginning of the document but perhaps
  >   some explanation could be put early.



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Sunday, 11 March 2001 12:56:53 UTC