- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:24:36 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Dear UAWG, A few days ago, I sent an email [1] proposing some changes regarding our checkpoints relating to visual highlight of selection, focus, and a couple of other pieces of information. There's been a fair amount of discussion on the list, and I'd like to summarize some of the key points in preparation for discussion at tomorrow's teleconference. After the summary, there is a proposal that Jon and I support. We welcome your comments. Reference document: 12 Sep 2002 CR http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/ - Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0124 --------------------- Summary of key points --------------------- 1) I believe that the purpose of checkpoints 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.7 is to ensure that users making use of a graphical user interface can distinguish five classes of information (selection, focus, enabled elements, visited links, and fee links) through a configurable highlight mechanism. Note: Guideline six requires that information about selection, focus, and content be available through an API. We included those requirements so that ATs would not have to rely on rendered highlights (e.g., boxes) to figure out the range of the selection. While ATs certainly *may* use that technique, I don't think that we should be including requirements (notably at P1) that fly in the face of our goal to communicate this information through an API. 2) The specific accessibility needs we are trying to meet here are: a) To ensure that users can specify their own colors in order to overcome difficulties with particular combinations; b) To ensure that users with an extremely limited color capabilities colors (e.g., users with macular degeneration who rely exclusively on black and white) can still distinguish the five classes of information that interest us. If, for example, a user must view white text on a black background, then, the user agent must make available highlight mechanisms that do not rely on text foreground and background colors (limited to only black and white). These two scenarios suggest that we will have one requirement for configuration, and another related to highlight styles not based on text colors alone. 3) A sentence such as "the selection highlight mechanism must not rely on color alone" is confusing, because it suggests that a highlight mechanism that relies on color alone does not satisfy the requirement. I believe that what we intended to say was: "The UA must provide at least one highlight mechanism that does not rely on color alone." In its current form, checkpoint 10.3 makes requirements on *default* highlight styles. If these defaults do not respect operating environment conventions, however, this is likely to confuse some (indeed, many) users. User agent developers are very unlikely to implement default highlight styles that conflict with operating environment conventions. Checkpoint 7.1 (P1) already requires that selection and focus be implemented according to operating environment conventions. Note: The second provision of 10.3 currently says that the checkpoint does not apply to those highlight styles inherited from the operating environment as default values, as long as the user can change the styles in the operating environment. In practice, we have seen developers claim conformance to 10.3 even though the first provision (which makes stricter provisions than simple inheritance) has not been satisfied. This seems to be a loophole in the document that is cleared up by the proposal below. 4) The WCAG 1.0 requirement for the author to not rely on color alone is about the author encoding information; don't encode meaning in color alone. In UAAG 1.0, since the values of these five classes of information are available through an API per Guideline 6, the checkpoints in Guideline 10 are only about rendering, not encoding semantics. -------- Proposal -------- As Jon pointed out on this thread, we are proposing the following hierarchy of requirements: 1. Ensure that the user can configure highlight styles. 2. Observe operating environment conventions. 3. Allow the user to create and use profiles. The following checkpoint combines and replaces checkpoints 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4. The most important change here is that the highlight configuration requirement for content goes from P2 to P1. New 10.x (P1), five provisions: 1. Provide a global mechanism for highlighting the selection and content focus of each viewport, as well as all enabled elements, recently visited links, and fee links in rendered content. 2. For each of these five classes of information, provide at least one highlight mechanism (e.g., underline or border) that does not rely on text foreground and background colors alone. 3. Allow the user to configure the highlight mechanisms for these five classes of information so that they are distinguishable in the same viewport at the same time. 4. For graphical viewports, if a highlight mechanism involves text size, font family, colors, or text decorations, offer the following range of values: 1) for text size, same range described in checkpoint 4.1; 2) for font family, same range described in checkpoint 4.2; 3) for colors and text decorations, offer a range that includes at least: * the range offered by the conventional utility available in the operating environment that allows users to choose colors or text decorations (e.g., the standard font and color dialog box resources supported by the operating system). * or, if no such utility is available, the range of colors or text decorations supported by the conventional APIs of the operating environment for specifying colors or drawing text. 5. Highlight enabled elements according to the granularity specified in the format. For example, an HTML user agent rendering a PNG image as part of an image map is only required to highlight the image as a whole, not each enabled region. An SVG user agent rendering an SVG image with embedded graphical links is required to highlight each graphical link that may be rendered independently according to the SVG specification. Note: Examples of highlight mechanisms for selection and content focus include foreground and background color variations, underlining, distinctive synthesized speech prosody, border styling, etc. Because the selection and focus change frequently, user agents should not highlight them using mechanisms (e.g., font size variations) that cause content to reflow as this may disorient the user. Examples of highlight mechanisms for links and other content include foreground and background color variations, font variations, underlining, distinctive synthesized speech prosody, border styling, etc. Note: Per checkpoint 7.1, follow operating environment conventions that benefit accessibility when implementing the selection and content focus. New 10.y (P2), one provision: 1. Allow the user to configure via a single setting the highlight mechanisms for the five classes of information described in checkpoint 10.x so that they are distinguishable in the same viewport at the same time, and do not rely on text foreground and background colors alone. Note: If the user agent satisfies this requirement, the user agent automatically satisfies provision 3. of checkpoint 10.x. See also checkpoint 11.6, which requires the user agent to allow the user to save configurations in a user profile. ------------------------ Comments on the proposal ------------------------ - In the techniques document, be sure to document why we require mechanisms that do not rely on text fg and bg color alone (e.g., for users with macular degeneration). ------------------------------------ Proposed revision to checkpoint 10.7 ------------------------------------ In its current form, checkpoint 10.7 (intentionally) does not require user configuration of viewport highlight style, as long as the default highlight does not rely on color alone. I propose the following changes for consistency with the proposed 10.x above. The revision no longer talks about default styles and adds a configurability requirement *only* for the non-text foreground/background highlight style. Revised 10.7 (P1): 1. Provide a global mechanism for highlighting the viewport with the current focus (including any frame that takes current focus). 2. Provide at least one highlight mechanism (e.g., a thick outline) that does not rely on text foreground and background colors alone. 3. For graphical viewports, if the highlight mechanism required by the previous provision involves text size, font family, colors, or text decorations, offer the same ranges of values required by checkpoint 10.x. Note: Per checkpoint 7.3, follow operating environment conventions that benefit accessibility when implementing the viewport highlight mechanism. Note: Since checkpoint 6.5 requires notification of changes in user interface focus through an API, this checkpoint does not require that user agents indicate changes in focus through a text message in the user interface. Additional comment on the current checkpoint 10.7: The Note says that it's a special case of checkpoint 1.1; I think that's a bug. -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 10:25:04 UTC