- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:57:06 -0700
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- CC: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Steven, > > Thank you for your review and here are some initial comments. Yes, thank you Steven for doing this. My comments below. - IAn > Jon > > comments in JRG: > > At 11:47 AM 9/24/2002 +0200, Steven Pemberton wrote: > >> I hear you are planning to move straight to PR. What are the CR exit >> criteria, and how do you measure that they have been met? > > > JRG: The same as other groups. Two independent implementations of each > requirement. Although we may need to ask for exceptions for a few > requirements, that have low implementation. See implementation report: > http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/impl-pr2/ > > Right now we have 2 implementations for about 92% of the requirements. > >> Guideline 1. Checkpoint 1.2 >> >> "Allow the user to activate, through keyboard input alone, all event >> handlers that are explicitly associated with the element designated by >> the >> content focus." >> >> *all* is a bit overkill here. For instance XForms allows event >> handlers for >> events that are part of the processing model. These events are not >> caused by >> the user, and are not intended to be fired by the user, and Forms >> processing >> would be seriously disturbed if the user could activate handlers when >> these >> events had not been fired. I would specify here "all event handlers for >> events that could be caused by direct user interaction", or some such. > > > JRG: This needs to be clarified for events that can be fired through > user interaction. Yes, I think this is a bug in the spec. 9.6 says "the list of input device event types", and the previous version of the spec (the CR draft) says: "any explicitly associated input device event handlers", and the second provision only talks about input device event handlers. So this is just a bug that should be fixed per SP's suggestion. >> Guideline 2. Checkpoint 2.2 >> "For the purposes of this checkpoint, a text format is any media object >> given an Internet media type of "text" (e.g., "text/ plain", >> "text/html", or >> "text/*") as defined in RFC 2046 [RFC2046], section 4.1." >> >> Therefore not XHTML, which has media type application/xhtml+xml. I would >> beef up this definition to at least include XML. >> > > JRG: Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, I agree that that update is appropriate. >> Guideline 3. Checkpoint 3.3 >> >> "Blinking text is text whose visual rendering alternates between >> visible and >> invisible, at any rate of change." >> >> And so not blinking between different colours? > > > JRG: Good point, we want to cover this too. "Between two colors" seems like a generalization of "between one color and the background color", which is what 3.3 currently says. >> Checkpoint 3.5 >> >> "Authors (and Webmasters) should use the redirect mechanisms of HTTP >> instead >> of client-side redirects." >> >> I'm not sure what this means. is <meta http-equiv="..." /> a redirect >> mechanism of HTTP? No, that's browser-specific behavior that is not the same as an HTTP redirect. > What if I don't have access to HTTP redirects? Is that >> covered by the 'should'? Yes, that's covered by the should. >> "For example, if an HTML author has used a META element for automatic >> content retrieval, allow configuration to override the automatic behavior >> with manual confirmation." >> >> I don't understand this. > > > JRG: Refresh can be disorienting to some users with disabilities and the > refresh needs to be controlled by the user Proposed clarification: "For example, if an HTML author has used a META element for automatic content retrieval, the user agent should allow configuration to stop the automatic retrieval. Users can retrieve the content manually (e.g., "reload"). >> Guideline 4. Checkpoint 4.3 >> "greys": I don't care, but pub rules says this should be "grays". Point taken. >> Checkpoint 6.2 >> "This checkpoint is stands apart from checkpoint 6.1": syntax error Yes. >> Checkpoint 6.6 >> "The user agent is not required to provide notification of changes in the >> rendering of content ... unless the document object to make those >> changes." >> Syntax error Yes. Should be "unless those changes affect the document object" or something similar. >> Checkpoint 6.8 >> "Support for character encodings is important so that text is not >> "broken" >> when communicated to assistive technologies." Please use a better >> expression >> than "broken". E.g. "so that text is correctly communicated to assistive >> technologies". Yes. I think "broken" came from Martin Duerst a long time ago. :) (Issue 327) http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#327 >> Checkpoint 6.9 >> "Export the normative bindings specified in the CSS module of the DOM) >> Level >> 2 Style Specification" Mismatched brackets Yes. >> "For the purposes of satisfying this checkpoint, Cascading Style Sheets >> (CSS) are defined by either CSS Level 1 [CSS1] or CSS Level 2 [CSS2]." >> Why not state "any level of CSS" so you don't have to republish when >> level 3 >> comes out? We don't want forward references. We'll republish if we need to. >> Checkpoint 11.4 >> Would an emacs-like method of typing "escape" to go into single-key mode, >> and then letting you type a single single-key be allowable here? Yes. > Or do >> you >> have to be able to toggle into and out of single-key mode explicitely? I >> couldn't tell. I don't think we have much more detail on this; what problem do you see that is not solved? What you described satisfies the language and I think intent of the checkpoint. >> Checkpoint 11.5 >> "interrupt a request to reload a resource;" => interrupt a request to >> load >> or reload a resource; Yes. -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 19:01:18 UTC