Action-1029 nested UA user interfaces

lets get this done on the list. Please respond.

On the call last week [1], we changed the definition of user agent user
interface. During that discussion the topic of nested user agent's user
interface came up. Specifically, for conformance only the parent user
agent's user interface should be considered.

Greg proposed some wording...

Note: In this document the term user interface is reserved only for
controls and mechanisms of the user agent that is being considered for
conformance. It does not include controls and mechanisms created by content
or other user agents. For example..."(stuff about nested and hosting UA)"

perhaps:
For example
​,​
a desktop user agent displays a page containing a media player. The media
player is a user agent with its own unique user interface. The media player
would have its own unique conformance claim, just as the parent user agent
has its own conformance claim.

-----

A nested user agent would be a media player plugin (flash, quicktime, real,
window media player, etc.) embedded in content and displayed in a parent
user agent. UAAG20 only mentions 'embedded user agents' in SC 2.1.3 Avoid
Keyboard traps. we define embedded user agent and plug-in.

I think it is understood that every user agent has its own user interface,
even if it is nested within another user agent.
The user interface for a parent user agent does not include the user
interface for a nested/embedded/child user agent (e.g. a media player
embedded within a webpage displayed in a user agent).

I think adding wording and explaining about embedded user agents only
confuses the creation of a compliance claim. If I am a developer of a user
agent making a claim about my user agent, I cannot envision making a claim
on all of the content that might appear within my content viewport that I
know nothing about and have very little control over.

I want to reject this proposal.
​I think the example could be more clear. However, even if made clearer,
the example is just as long as the statement, and is likely to be longer,
which to me seems wrong.

​
If you have opinions otherwise, please respond with a
​ fleshed out proposal. ​


1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2014JulSep/0077.html

---
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964