Re: Proposal for Checkpoints 1.2, 9.5 and 9.6

Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> The following checkpoints are all related to the problem of authors not 
> using accessible design practices:
> Checkpoint 1.2 Activate event handlers
> Checkpoint 9.5 No events on focus change
> Checkpoint 9.6 Show event handlers
> 
> The list discussion suggested that these were important requirements to 
> keep with one vote to remove the requirements altogether.
> 
> PROPOSAL: We create a new label called "repair" that would include this 
> set of checkpoints and the following checkpoints:
> Checkpoint 2.2 Provide text view. (P1)
> Checkpoint 2.7 Repair missing content. (P2)
> Checkpoint 2.8 No repair text. (P3)
> 
> These checkpoints I think are all related to repairing poorly authored 
> web pages.
> 
> The advantage of a "repair" label is that we can keep the requirements, 
> but still provide a means for user agents to conform even if they do not 
> implement these specific requirements.

Jon,

I like the idea of a repair checkpoint. I'm not sure I would
include 2.2 in that list, however. I think that this is a "last
resort" checkpoint and should remain a P1 checkpoint.

I haven't reviewed the other checkpoints in the document to see
whether there are other repairs that we require.

I hesitate to use the word "repair" to label the set, but I don't
have a counter-proposal right now. In the case of HTML event 
handlers, for example, it's not an authoring error to specify a 
mouse binding only. It is an error with respect to WCAG 1.0:

  9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than
      device-dependent event handlers.

I think we should be able to show why each checkpoint is
a repair checkpoint.

  _ Ian




-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 17:13:44 UTC