- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:30:35 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:26:46 -0600 >To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> >From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu> >Subject: Re: Issues and comments arising from UA evaluations > >Responses in JRG: >At 03:26 PM 3/12/2002 -0500, you wrote: >>Dear UAWG, >> >>A number of issues about the UAAG 1.0 Candidate Recommendation >>[1] have come up during recent reviews with developers. Most >>of these issues only require clarification. However, there are a >>couple of proposals for more substantial changes below that >>I'd like to discuss at an upcoming teleconference. >> >>Jon, I don't suggest that we add these to the issues list until >>the UAWG has had a chance to discuss them. >> >>Comments welcome, >> >> - Ian >> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/ >> >>============= >> From the Mozilla review: >> >> 1) Can checkpoints 6.1 and 6.2 be satisfied if the >> APIs are not available out-of-process? >> >> Proposed: Yes. > >JRG: I agree, in or out of process access relates to Checkpoint 6.9 > >>============= >> From the (incomplete) RealNetworks review: >> >> 2) Add a section to the document explaining how other >> specifications can create profiles of UAAG 1.0 >> conformance. For instance, if the FOO specification wants to >> require FOO user agents to conform to UAAG 1.0 in a >> particular manner, what should/must the FOO spec say? >> >> Proposed: I would like to write this up and send to the >> UAWG in the near future. > >JRG: I think this is good, but I think it would be good to work with >another working group trying to do this as part of the process. > >> 3) UAAG 1.0 needs to be clearer about the fact that a user >> agent is not required to satisfy all requirements for >> all implemented formats. I believe the document already >> says this, but it's not easy to find. > >JRG: Editorial > >> 4) Make clearer up front (e.g., at the beginning of section >> 2, not just the conformance section) that a user agent >> can conform to fewer than all the checkpoints. > >JRG: Editorial > >>============= >> From the Opera review: >> >> 5) Checkpoint 2.10 needs clarification. Current text: >> >> "Once the user has viewed the original author-supplied >> content associated with a placeholder, allow the user to turn >> off the rendering of the author-supplied content." >> >> Proposed: >> >> "If the user agent has satisfied checkpoint 2.3 by using >> a placeholder, then allow the user to toggle rendering >> between the placeholder and the original author-supplied >> content." > >JRG: Sounds good to me > >> 6) Checkpoint 3.1: Clarify that if the user agent allows the >> user to turn off all images, including background images, >> then this checkpoint is satisfied, but this is not >> the optimal solution (since better to be able to turn >> of background images separately). > >JRG: OK with me > >> 7) Clarify for 1.2, 9.5, 9.6 that checkpoint may be >> satisfied on a per event type basis; additional >> granularity (per handler) is not required. This >> clarification is consistent with our recent >> DOM discussions. > >JRG: I agree, we only want to trigger user interface events. If more than >one event handler is associated with a user interface event, then all of >them should be triggered. > >> 8) Checkpoint 6.3: The title is "Programmatic >> access to non-HTML/XML content", but the first >> requirement refers to "markup language" (which would >> exclude, for example, images). Do we intend "all content" >> here, or just markup (non-HTML/XML) markup languages? > >JRG: I think we want the more general term, for example we want to include >things like PDF and FLASH. FLASH is markup oriented, but I don't think PDF is. > >> I don't have a proposal for this one. >> >> 9) [Editorial] Clarify in 3.6 why P2 and 3.5 is P1. >> This is already in the techniques doc, so not critical. > >JRG: OK > >>10) Checkpoints 6.2 and 6.3 (DOM write access and >> programmatic access to other types of content): >> there is some content where it's a security issue >> to provide *any* kind of programmatic access. [Tantek >> made similar comments during the Mac IE review.] >> >> Some ideas for dealing with this: >> >> a) Provide programmatic access, but when security >> is an issue, prompt the user for confirmation >> (on configuration). >> >> b) If the user agent has a mechanism for allowing trusted >> programmatic access, then ATs should use this mechanism, >> and the UA must make available all content to these >> trusted agents. > >JRG: We have pretty limited write access requirement. In forms it is >primarily to the value attribute with only the allowed values defined by >the author, since this is all any user gets to modify in the form. We >don't allow the user to add nodes or change the type of control, becasue >the user does't. > >>11) Checkpoints 6.1/6.2: Is it a P1 to implement some API >> and P2 to implement the DOM 2 Core? See my additional >> thoughts below. > >JRG: I think we have put this one to rest many times, is there new >information? > >>12) Checkpoints 6.1-6.4: Perhaps it's better (though not >> necessarily simpler) to express these checkpoints as >> functional requirements. It may turn out that the >> functional requirements are met by implementing >> some piece of an API. > >JRG: Aren't they functional requirements now? > >>============= >> From the MAC IE review (not yet completed) >> >>13) Checkpoint 2.2: "XML and SGML applications". According to Ian >> Hickson and Tantek Çelik (both there for the evaluation), one >> cannot reliably determine what's an xml and sgml application by >> sniffing content. We will need to be more precise about how one >> would determine that something is an xml or sgml application. >> >> I don't have a proposal for this one. >> >>14) Checkpoint 3.4: Toggle scripts. Tantek argued that, >> since most pages include scripts, the following >> provision should not be P1: >> >> "In this configuration, provide an option to alert the >> user when executable content is available (but has not >> been executed)." >> >> The alert will be so frequent as to be ignored. One >> suggestion is to pull out this provision and make it a >> lower priority. >> >> Proposal: Make the alert a P3 requirement. >> >>15) Checkpoint 6.2: Tantek stated that there are security >> issues for some types of programmatic access to content. >> (for instance, programmatic access to HTML's INPUT element, >> type="file", which might allow the author to upload a file >> from the user's computer without the user's permission). >> >> See my comments below on 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. >> >>16) Checkpoint 6.9: Timely access. The checkpoint reads: >> "Ensure that programmatic exchanges proceed in a timely >> manner." It's not clear which exchanges this checkpoint >> refers to - internal to the user agent? between the UA >> and ATs? >> >> Proposal: This refers to exchanges over the APIs required >> elsewhere in Guideline 6. >> >>17) Checkpoint 7.4: Input configuration indications. >> >> Proposal: Clarify that the requirement is to "Follow >> operating environment *user interface* conventions to >> indicaxte the input configuration." >> >>18) Checkpoints 7.3, 8.1: >> >> Proposal: Clarify that the expression "identified as such" >> means "identified as such in the specification". However, >> this does not account for W3C Notes such as "Accessibility >> features of CSS" which may be useful but not normative. >> >>19) Checkpoint 9.3: Move content focus. >> >> Proposal: In point three, clarify that "each element" means >> each element in the set defined in point 1. Tantek >> recommended introducing the term "Focusable element" and >> using it in point 1. >> >>20) Checkpoint 9.4: Restore history. The checkpoint reads: >> >> "For user agents that implement a viewport history >> mechanism, for each state in a viewport's browsing history, >> maintain information about the point of regard, content >> focus, and selection." >> >> However, even when a user agent implements a history >> mechanism, it may not keep all pages in its cache. >> >> Proposal: Do not require the user agent to restore state >> variables for pages removed from the history cache. >> >>21) Checkpoint 9.7: The checkpoint title is "Move content focus >> optimally". The word "optimal" is a bit strong. >> >> Proposal: Change the title to "Move content focus reverse" >> since the primary (but not only) difference from 9.3 is the >> reverse requirement. >> >>22) Checkpoints 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.7: The expression "rely on >> color alone" is ambiguous. In the end, on a color display, all >> distinguishing marks rely on color (e.g., a solid line is a line >> of a different color than, say, the background color; >> three-dimensional effects are due to shading, etc.). >> >> Proposal: Given our checkpoint 4.3 (configure text colors), I >> propose that for the 10.x checkpoints, we modify the language >> to read "rely on text foreground and background color alone". >> >>============= >>Other observations and points for discussion: >> >>Thought 1) I continue to wonder whether 6.1 and 6.2 should be >>requiring DOM implementation at a P1 level. >> >> Pros: >> - Supposed to promote interoperability by requiring >> a known API. >> - An API is supposed to help developers by providing >> access to incremental changes in content; a simple >> text dump after any changes may decrease performance >> by requiring the AT to reparse each time (though in >> practice, apparently some do this anyway). >> >> Cons/Questions: >> - AT developers may not, in practice, be interested in >> implementing the DOM, even though in the past they have >> expressed interest. >> - Developers can't implement more suitable APIs for a given >> content type (e.g., SVG) since must implement DOM 2 Core, >> even though a specific SVG DOM might exist. >> - It is not guaranteed that the *entire* DOM 2 Core >> is required to to provide ATs with sufficient access. >> I don't look forward to requiring some "subset" of DOM 2 >> Level Core, but it would be worthwhile to determine whether >> nearly all of DOM 2 is required for communication with >> ATs >> >> Some ideas for other changes based on discussions: >> >> - Change 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 to resemble 6.4. >> For example, a new checkpoint replacing 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 >> might be: >> >> <NEW 6.x> >> Programmatic access to content (P1) >> 1. Provide programmatic read access to content. >> 2. If the user can modify content through the user >> interface, provide the same functionality >> programmatically. >> 3. To satisfy these requirements, implement at least >> one API that is either >> * defined by a W3C Recommendation, >> * a publicly documented API designed to enable >> interoperability with assistive technologies. >> 4. If no such API is available, or if available APIs do >> not enable the user agent to satisfy the requirements, >> implement at least one publicly documented API that >> allows programmatic operation of all of the >> functionalities that are available through the user >> agent user interface, and follow operating environment >> conventions for the use of input and output APIs. >> 5. An API is considered available if the specification of >> the API is published (e.g., as a W3C Recommendation) in >> time for integration into a user agent's development >> cycle. >> >> Note: We encourage developers to satisfy this checkpoint >> by using the DOM Level 2 Core specification for read >> and write access to XML and HTML content, or a more >> specific DOM (e.g., for HTML, SVG, or SMIL) when one exists. >> </NEW 6.x> >> >> >>Thought 2) Change the priorities of some requirements related to >>default values. A long time ago, Greg Lowney suggested that we >>should not have priority 1 checkpoints about user agent default >>styles, but rather priority 1 checkpoints that the user be able >>to change values, and perhaps priority 2 checkpoints about what >>the defaults should be. I continue to think that this would be a >>good change to make, in particular after the evaluations I have >>done. The following checkpoints relate to default styles: >> >> 7.2 Respect input configuration conventions. (P1) >> >> 1. Ensure that default input configurations of the user agent >> do not interfere with operating environment accessibility >> conventions (e.g., for keyboard accessibility). >> >> 10.3 Distinct default highlight styles. (P1) >> >> 1. Ensure that all of the default highlight styles for the >> selection and content focus, as well as for enabled elements, >> recently visited links, and fee links in rendered content >> do not rely on color alone, and differ from each other, and >> not by color alone. >> >> 10.7 Highlight current viewport. (P1) >> >> 2. For graphical viewports, the default highlight mechanism >> must not rely on color alone. >> >>Proposals: >> >> - Checkpoint 11.3 is a P2 ("Allow the user to override any >> binding that is part of the user agent default input >> configuration.") I propose making this checkpoint a P1 and >> making 7.2.1 a P2. >> >> - Since checkpoints 10.2 and 10.4 are P1, require the UA to >> allow the user to configure styles, and cover all the pieces >> mentioned in 10.3, make 10.3.1 a priority 2 checkpoint. I realize >> that without 10.3 at a P1 level, the user might not be able >> to distinguish some highlight styles "out of the box", but I >> think that should be relatively easy to fix thanks to 10.2 and >> 10.4 >> >> - I propose simply lowering the priority of 10.7.2 to P2. I note >> that we have no requirement that the user be able to configure >> the style of the viewport highlight mechanism. I don't propose >> that we add such a requirement. >> >>Note: In the above, "10.3.1" refers to checkpoint 10.3, >>requirement number 1. >> >>Note: There are other checkpoints (7.2, about default keyboard >>configurations. I don't propose that we change their priorities. >> >>Thought 3) Clarify the relation between UAAG 1.0 and other >>specifications. UAAG 1.0 includes requirements for specific >>features, but also asks for conformance to other specifications >>(e.g., HTML, CSS, etc.). I would like to add something to the >>conformance section that clarifies that: >> >> a) Developers should follow specifications, especially when >> consistent with UAAG 1.0 requirements. >> >> b) UAAG 1.0 may ask developers to implement optional features, >> i.e., go beyond what is strictly required for conformance >> to another specification. >> >> c) UAAG 1.0 may ask developers to implement features that >> are not part of another specification. >> >> d) UAAG 1.0 does not make a definitive pronouncement about what >> to do when a UAAG 1.0 requirement is in direct conflict with >> the requirement of another specification (something we hope >> will be rare, and even rarer for W3C specs thanks to the >> good work of the WAI PF Working Group). I think we should >> state explicitly that in these cases, UAAG 1.0 would >> prefer that developers meet the needs of people with >> disabilities. >> >>============= >>Some comments and questions about evaluations (perhaps should >>be discussed and added to "How to Evaluate a User Agent" [2]) >> >> - I think that each requirement of each checkpoint should be >> rated separately, rather than, say, trying to average 4 >> ratings for the 4 requirements of a single checkpoint. >> >> - Should known bugs that are expected to be fixed count >> against a given rating? I think that bugs should not >> count against the rating, provided there is a good faith >> commitment by the developer to fix them. Furthermore, they >> should be advertised in the claim, not hidden. >> >> - How can we calibrate evaluations, i.e., make them more >> comparable? How do we ensure even rating across evaluations? >> >>[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/10/eval >> >>-- >>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >>Tel: +1 718 260-9447 > >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 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 Wednesday, 13 March 2002 15:27:34 UTC