W3C WAI User Agent Issue List: Second Last Call

Linear Version

Link to table version of this issue list

Link to Previous Issue List

Last updated on: Thu Mar 29 16:53:59 2001

Indexes of issues available

• List of open issues
• List of resolved issues
• Numerical list of issues
• Index of issues by category of issue
• Index of issues by name of person raising the issue
• Index of issues by type of issue

Key to Letters Before Issue Number

• WD: Working Draft
• LC1: Issue raised during first last call
• CR1: Issue raised during first candidate recommendation
• PR1: Issue raised during first proposed recommendation
• LC2: Issue raised during second last call

No Open Issues

List of 148 Resolved Issues

• LC(second)#468: 11.3 (single-key binding): "At least a majority" minimal requirement needs review
• LC(second)#467: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: User needs to be able to toggle off as well as on (e.g., for a user with a cognitive disability).
• LC(second)#466: What are the priority of the accessibility issues and user agent minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.3
• LC(second)#465: Checkpoints 1.1/1.2: Keyboard AND Mouse AND Voice confusing since conformance section follows the checkpoints; the text feels contradictory.
• LC(second)#464: Applicability clause needs review since "role" not always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL)
• LC(second)#463: Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other specifications
• LC(second)#462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and redirection (3.6)
• LC(second)#461: Orientation to the actions available on the element with focus
• LC(second)#460: Checkpoint 2.2 (timed input): Examples of "required user input"?
• LC(second)#459: What are UA responsibilities when content "takes over" UI controls?
• LC(second)#458: Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an image map? What is required granularity?
• LC(second)#457: Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required: standard APIs only?
• LC(second)#456: Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not mean system APIs
• LC(second)#455: Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of presentation"?
• LC(second)#454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1?
• LC(second)#453: Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects"
• LC(second)#452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?)
• LC(second)#451: Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just null alt
• LC(second)#450: If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions should it follow?
• LC(second)#449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0
• LC(second)#448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write?
• LC(second)#447: Conformance: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements
• LC(second)#446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG)
• LC(second)#445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions?
• LC(second)#444: Guideline 1 rationale needs clarification
• LC(second)#443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) specific events
• LC(second)#442: Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click behavior?
• LC(second)#441: New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the resource being at the same or a different domain.
• LC(second)#440: Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques?
• LC(second)#439: Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation
• LC(second)#438: Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of active elements sufficient?
• LC(second)#437: Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2
• LC(second)#436: Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples
• LC(second)#435: Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well?
• LC(second)#434: Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to override author-specified volumes
• LC(second)#433: Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is "instantaneous"?
• LC(second)#432: Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2
• LC(second)#431: New requirement: conforming UA must make available preferences through API
• LC(second)#430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images
• LC(second)#429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying preferences.
• LC(second)#428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4)
• LC(second)#427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format
• LC(second)#426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this checkpoint
• LC(second)#425: Checkoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4
• LC(second)#424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input?
• LC(second)#423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf information presented.
• LC(second)#422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active element/focus + techniques
• LC(second)#421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required.
• LC(second)#420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for confirmation when activating a fee link
• LC(second)#419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement
• LC(second)#418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text.
• LC(second)#417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from beginning without alert
• LC(second)#416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard?
• LC(second)#415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4)
• LC(second)#414: Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements
• LC(second)#413: Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content?
• LC(second)#412: Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and second sentences.
• LC(second)#411: Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface with overlapping viewports
• LC(second)#410: Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20?
• LC(second)#409: Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result?
• LC(second)#408: Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not force manual open.
• LC(second)#407: Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic closing of viewports
• LC(second)#406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3
• LC(second)#405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish selection/focus
• LC(second)#404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big performance hit, reflow.
• LC(second)#403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of author-specified speeds.
• LC(second)#402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for one wpm case)
• LC(second)#401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a separate
• LC(second)#400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to play simultanously?
• LC(second)#399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this?
• LC(second)#398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not recognized as style"
• LC(second)#397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to define "system colors"
• LC(second)#396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values
• LC(second)#395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional
• LC(second)#394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view
• LC(second)#393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other programmatic means.
• LC(second)#392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad
• LC(second)#391: Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to reimplement input methods.
• LC(second)#390: Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing approach
• LC(second)#389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion
• LC(second)#388: Checkpoint 9.7: Raise priority to P1
• LC(second)#387: Checkpoint 8.4: Where do labels come from? XML/HTML?
• LC(second)#386: Checkpoint 5.4: Move example to Note
• LC(second)#385: Add requirement that component size increases when objects contained increase size?
• LC(second)#384: Editorial Checkpoint 3.3: Add an example of stock quote ticker
• LC(second)#383: Checkpoint 3.2: Add definition of "placeholder"
• LC(second)#382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used).
• LC(second)#381: Checkpoint 2.5: Checkpoint text needs clarification
• LC(second)#380: Checkpoint 2.3: What if equivalency relationship unknowable by format?
• LC(second)#379: Checkpoint 1.2: Exception when primary output (e.g., graphics) cannot be handled by the OS?
• LC(second)#378: Simplify language of document for non-technical audience.
• LC(second)#377: Security issues and communication with other software
• LC(second)#376: Requirement that plug-ins be given focus
• LC(second)#375: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality?
• LC(second)#374: Definition: Selection, current selection and use of inflected speech.
• LC(second)#373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1
• LC(second)#372: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality?
• LC(second)#371: Checkpoint 3.8: Priority should be raised from P2 to P1
• LC(second)#370: Checkpoint 7.6: Clarification required on how important elements identified
• LC(second)#369: Checkpoint 7.4: Conformance possible if you can't get to elements with event handlers?
• LC(second)#368: Checkpoint 10.1: Use relative priority
• LC(second)#367: Checkpoint 1.2: Clarification required for cross-platform implementations, published APIs, more
• LC(second)#366: Editorial: Please put direct links to WAI resources.
• LC(second)#365: Checkpoint 4.12: Re-evaluate priority of increase/decrease and allow other techniques (also, other issues)
• LC(second)#364: Checkpoint 3.5: Add plug-ins, clarify that on a resource-level (not element-level)
• LC(second)#363: Checkpoint 3.3: What if scripts used for blinking? (also, other issues)
• LC(second)#362: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarifications required (e.g., is this an accessibility issue?)
• LC(second)#361: Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long / consider ease-of-use
• LC(second)#360: Checkpoint 2.2: What if time interval controlled by server? What about security issues?
• LC(second)#359: Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?)
• LC(second)#358: Definition: Equivalent
• LC(second)#357: Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content properties
• LC(second)#356: Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations"
• LC(second)#355: Conformance: OS features used must be accessible
• LC(second)#354: Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard / viewport
• LC(second)#353: Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement.
• LC(second)#352: Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable?
• LC(second)#351: Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG definitions
• LC(second)#350: Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4?
• LC(second)#349: New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently informative in 6.2)
• LC(second)#348: Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard (state v. interaction)
• LC(second)#347: Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable? What is definition?
• LC(second)#346: Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3, leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement
• LC(second)#345: Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable?
• LC(second)#344: Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type
• LC(second)#343: Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia checkpoints v. continuous-time
• LC(second)#342: Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording
• LC(second)#341: Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording
• LC(second)#340: Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for informative cross-refs.
• LC(second)#339: DOM Level 2 requirement for HTML since returned to Working Draft
• LC(second)#338: Editorial: Edits to Guideline 1 prose re: easy access
• LC(second)#337: Conformance: Implementing the standard API for the keyboard "after IME"
• LC(second)#336: Checkpoint 9.2: Delete "accessibility" from "OS accessibility conventions"?
• LC(second)#335: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to consider international input methods in single-key requirement
• LC(second)#334: Checkpoint 7.5: Input to search capability not always "plain text" (may be speech, braille)
• LC(second)#333: Checkpoint 4.2: Clarification required about what "all text" means
• LC(second)#332: Repair requirement for when author has not specified natural language of content?
• LC(second)#331: Add a requirement for configurability based on natural language preferences?
• LC(second)#330: Definition: Natural language / Writing system / Script
• LC(second)#329: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification required about boundaries of "recognized but unsupported"
• LC(second)#328: Checkpoint 4.12: "Words" per minute bounds do not scale internationally.
• LC(second)#327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API?
• LC(second)#326: Checkpoint 1.2: What if the standard APIs do the wrong thing?
• LC(second)#325: Checkpoint 5.5: API notification of content change in one viewport that causes change in another
• LC(second)#324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2
• LC(second)#323: Using accessibility APIs rather than standard APIs to make non-W3C based content accessible
• LC(second)#322: The definition of the word element
• LC(second)#321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3

Issue details listed in numerical order

Issue 468 (Second Last Call): 11.3 (single-key binding): "At least a majority" minimal requirement needs review

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0399.html

Date: Thu Mar 22 09:58:22 2001

Category of issue: Keyboard

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary:

• Minimal requirement was list of functionalities required in default set.
• Add notes encouraging more bindings, and also availability (for binding) of most functionalities.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Also noted by EH.

Key References: none

Issue 467 (Second Last Call): Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: User needs to be able to toggle off as well as on (e.g., for a user with a cognitive disability).

Name: Denis Anson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0425.html

Date: Thu Mar 15 15:12:49 2001

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Add P3 requirement to toggle off objects of 3.2/3.7

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Denis argued that it didn't matter whether you had all images rendered at once or one at time; in the end, if you have too many then a user with a cognitive disability will have problems accessing information.

Key References: none

Issue 466 (Second Last Call): What are the priority of the accessibility issues and user agent minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.3

Name: Aaron Leventhal and Jon Gunderson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0403.html

Date: Wed Mar 14 08:41:22 2001

Category of issue: Scripting events

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Checkpoint 9.3 (of 9 march draft) should be a P2 requirement. It is not clear that the problem is widespread enough on the Web today to merit P1, even though for some edge cases onFocus handlers might make some content inaccessible. In general, the greater problem is about mouse event handlers.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0427.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 465 (Second Last Call): Checkpoints 1.1/1.2: Keyboard AND Mouse AND Voice confusing since conformance section follows the checkpoints; the text feels contradictory.

Name: Aaron Leventhal

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0366.html

Date: Fri Mar 9 20:47:11 2001

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Adopt various proposals identified in minutes:

• Move pointing device/voice requirements to conformance section
• Implement labels to identify checkpoints as being for content, ua, or both
• Add example of how to calculate what requirements to meet.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0495.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:

Discussed 15 March http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0427.html

Proposal from Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0452.html

Key References: none

Issue 464 (Second Last Call): Applicability clause needs review since "role" not always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL)

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

Date: Tue Mar 6 17:11:50 2001

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Don't change applicability provision. (It may be possible for the case of SMIL to indicate that control is required for any content whose rendering depends on the system-captions variable.)

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 463 (Second Last Call): Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other specifications

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

Date: Fri Mar 2 07:05:59 2001

Category of issue: References

Type of issue: Guidelines

Resolution summary: New section added to 9 March draft

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/wai-ua-telecon-20010308.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 462 (Second Last Call): Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and redirection (3.6)

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0153

Date: Fri Mar 2 07:02:00 2001

Category of issue: Automatic changes in content

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: WG not compelled to merge them. The user experience may be the same, but the developer may treat each case differently (e.g,. w.r.t. back button).

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 461 (Second Last Call): Orientation to the actions available on the element with focus

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes.html

Date: Fri Mar 2 06:09:30 2001

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Resolved as part of issue 443 http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#443

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Proposal from Jon Gunderson:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0299.html

Key Reference URLs:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0299.html

Issue 460 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.2 (timed input): Examples of "required user input"?

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0272.html

Date: Fri Mar 2 05:56:05 2001

Category of issue: Timing

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary:

Per 1-2 march face-to-face,

• Adopt modified proposal from JG with editorial changes: stop at the end of the time interval. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0285.html
• Add alert requirement
• Add clarification about relationship to checkpoint 4.8.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Proposed resolution at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0285.html

Key Reference URLs:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0285.html

Issue 459 (Second Last Call): What are UA responsibilities when content "takes over" UI controls?

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0271.html

Date: Fri Mar 2 05:52:52 2001

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: Guidelines

Resolution summary:

• Create a new Guideline (of existing checkpoints) about user control over content-controlled UI.
• Do not add new requirements at this time on this topic.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 458 (Second Last Call): Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an image map? What is required granularity?

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0459.html

Date: Wed Jan 10 10:24:42 2001

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: One image map needs to be highlighted, not active regions

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0193.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 457 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required: standard APIs only?

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0368.html

Date: Wed Dec 6 12:22:35 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Resolved no change in requirements. If no standard or accessibility API exist, developer can communicate with proprietary API

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0193.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: From Wendy's comment and after discussion with Charles, it seems that this checkpoint is not clear: is access to UI controls required even when there is no std API for doing so?

Key References: none

Issue 456 (Second Last Call): Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not mean system APIs

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0368.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 23:27:53 2000

Category of issue: OS Conventions

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Resolved no change in requirements

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0193.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
WC: It was my understanding of this section that if a standard accessibility API does not exist for an operating system, that the developer must create and use their own. This would cause an AT developer to learn a different API for each browser on a platform that did not have an accessibility API.

Key References: none

Issue 455 (Second Last Call): Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of presentation"?

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 16:23:31 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Guidelines

Resolution summary: Resolved to change the title fo the guidelines, see minutes for details

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0193.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: In this document, we only use the term "presentation" to mean "a collection of information, consisting of one or more Web resources, intended to be rendered simultaneously, and identified by a single URI" (that's part of the definition).

Key References: none

Issue 454 (Second Last Call): Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1?

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 16:22:29 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: (1) 3.6 (redirect) is P2 (2) 3.7 (refresh) is P1 (3) Some editorial clarifications to be made to clarify pull v. push.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
In the previous last call document, these were P3 requirements: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105/

At the 20 January face-to-face, we raised the priority of these checkpoints to P2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0152.html

Discussed 22 Jan 2001 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html

Key References: none

Issue 453 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects"

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 14:44:18 2000

Category of issue: Scripting events

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: (1) This checkpoint is about global configuration related to author-supplied executable content. (2) Adopt "executable content".

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Could checkpoint 3.5 be more general, e.g. "programmatic objects." Refer also to issue 364: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-364

Key References: none

Issue 452 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?)

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 14:38:26 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: (1) Minimal requirement is infinite delay (this makes sense for client-side control only and the HTTP world) (2) Add optional intervals to techniques.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
17. 2.2 - you need to provide more options to companies to address different types of situations and uses for timing. Suggest a 3 option approach 1 - user can turn off all timing OR 2 - user can adjust the timing to 5 times (or 10 times) the default setting. OR 3 - user is offered more time and has at least 10 seconds to respond to offer.

Discussed 22 Jan 2001: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html

Key References: none

Issue 451 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just null alt

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 14:12:28 2000

Category of issue: Alternative content

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Yes, we have generalized somewhat. But limited by UAAG 1.0's relation to WCAG 1.0

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 450 (Second Last Call): If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions should it follow?

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 14:09:38 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: (1) Add "environment conventions" to the glossary. (2) Global change of OS conventions to environment conventions.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
12. Several checkpoints refer to using operating system conventions. What about a user agent that is written in Java? In that case it is up to the virtual machine to use the system conventions. Checkpoints that this might affect: 1.3, 5.8, 8.6, 9.2. Also, section 3.2.

Key References: none

Issue 449 (Second Last Call): Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0

Name: WCAG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Date: Mon Dec 4 12:39:07 2000

Category of issue: Supporting materials

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Resolved to incorporate Ian's proposed summary, with editorial changes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0505.html

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0555.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 448 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write?

Name: HTML WG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0341.html

Date: Sun Nov 26 14:39:57 2000

Category of issue: DOM

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No change to checkpoint.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0105.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:

Refer to proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0099.html

Key References: none

Issue 447 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements

Name: HTML WG

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0341.html

Date: Sun Nov 26 10:30:33 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Editorial problem and confusing statement has been removed

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
The document continually referred to prefs that should be set, but state in the beginning that the application should work on default settings -- but what disability should the default be defaulted to? Which doesn't seem correct does it? So, the default install is what then? IJ: Another facet of this issue: we encourage "conformance by default", but some of the requirements involve configurability, so how does that work?

Key References: none

Issue 446 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG)

Name: Constantine Stephanidis

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0333.html

Date: Mon Nov 20 09:34:48 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: UA has decided to lead in requiring accessible rendering at all WCAG conformance levels

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 445 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions?

Name: Constantine Stephanidis

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0333.html

Date: Mon Nov 20 09:33:33 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: There are many accessible solutions, but our particular guidelines require keyboard support to conform

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 444 (Second Last Call): Guideline 1 rationale needs clarification

Name: Constantine Stephanidis

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0333.html

Date: Mon Nov 20 09:29:56 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Conformance statement clarifies what UA supports natively, AT support is though guideline 5

Resolution URL: Not resolved

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 443 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) specific events

Name: Constantine Stephanidis

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0333.html

Date: Mon Nov 20 09:24:21 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary:

Short answer: yes, require dev-independent triggering.

Per 1-2 march ftf, break down navigation requirements related to focus as follows:

• The user agent must allow the user to move the content focus in the current viewport to any enabled element in that viewport. Minimal requirement is sequential access.
• The user must be able to configure the user agent so that moving the content focus to an enabled element does not automatically activate any of the associated actions.
• For the element with focus, allow the user to query the element to find about event handlers explicitly provided by the author for user interface input events (e.g., keyboard, pointing device, and voice input events)." [Priority 2]
• The user must be able to activate any of the actions associated with the enabled element that has content focus, in a device-independent manner.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Another important issue that is not covered explicitly by the UAAG 1.0 concerns the behavior of User Agents when encountered with content that is device-dependent by nature. Consider the example of HTML and scripts that are executed upon mouse events (e.g., a script may be triggered as a result of a 'mouseover'). For users that do not employ a mouse (or equivalent pointing device), it would be impossible to activate that script, unless: * the User Agent notified users of the presence of such 'event handlers' and, additionally, enabled users to navigate (at least sequentially) through them; * the User Agent enabled users to 'manually' trigger such event handlers, and notified users of the results that triggering has effected to the document. Although cases such as the above example fall implicitly (in my opinion) under Checkpoint 1.4 ("Ensure that the user can interact with all active elements in a device-independent manner."), it may be worthwhile to explicitly address this issue through a 'special case' Checkpoint, or, at least, through a clarifying Note within the existing text.

Key References: none

Issue 442 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click behavior?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:27:55 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: If you don't claim conformance for the mouse, then mouse reconfig is not required.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: May want to scope this so it does not imply that the user agent has to allow the user to change the default mouse shortcuts (e.g. change the default action on click from "open" to "display information"). <p> ALSO <p>GL: Nice, but not easy to implement and probably difficult to get user agents to comply. Note the existence of third-party tools to do this for any application. IJ: Then claim conformance with those third-party tools...

Key References: none

Issue 441 (Second Last Call): New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the resource being at the same or a different domain.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:26:37 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No change. Already part of the document!

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: It would be nice to also make it easy to tell whether a link was to a resource inside or outside the current Web site, without the user having to compare URLs.

Key References: none

Issue 440 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:25:43 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: No change to the document: These are functional requirements.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
I think this checkpoint has a level of detail that could be left to Techniques; it is certainly more detail than most have.

Key References: none

Issue 439 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:24:30 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Yes, add directional navigation to techniques document.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
The techniques give examples sequential and direct navigation techniques, and elsewhere you discuss structural navigation and search. When discussing keyboard navigation techniques, I also list directional navigation as another class, and strongly recommend it be implemented in any case where the screen contains a two-dimensional arrangement of active elements.

Key References: none

Issue 438 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of active elements sufficient?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:23:19 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: (1) Add to the conformance section a clarification that one implication of checkpoint 1.1 is that you don't have to satisfy some of the checkpoints for input modalities for which you don't claim conformance. Possibly list checkpoints that make input requirements (including input device config requirements of G9). (2) No change to checkpoint 7.3 based on JG comments about users with physical disabilities.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Clarify whether it is sufficient to allow direct navigation with some input devices, such as the mouse (which is implied by 7.3 and 1.1). I feel direct navigation is sufficient for the mouse, and that sequential navigation with the mouse (e.g. a button to move to the next active element) may be desireable but is not important enough to be required. Anyone who relies on mouse only would have an on-screen keyboard that allows them to simulate keystrokes for navigation.

Key References: none

Issue 437 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:22:41 2000

Category of issue: DOM

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Raise to P2

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
I would rate this as priority 2, rather than priority 3, because it provides the only reasonable programmatic means of adjusting the global presentation of a document. Low vision tools, in particular, may want to do this, as may tools for people with cognitive or reading impairments.

• Reviewer has requested raising to P2
• Several WG participants have requested this be raised to P2.
• There seems to be developer support for raising to P2.
• We have information about two conforming DOM 2 style implementations (not sure whether UAs.)

Key References: none

Issue 436 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:22:08 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Editorial. Add references to some non-markup languages and some apis to techniques.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Action IJ: Put info about MSAA and JAVAAPI in 5.3 techniques. Add TeX, RTF, PDF, Postscript (Flash?), Word, Excel

Key References: none

Issue 435 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:21:18 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: For content only. No change to document. (See notes below)

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0071.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
You might want to clarify that this checkpoint requires user control over both speech UI of the user agent and speech that is part of author-supplied content.

This question raised the issue of whether the checkpoint groupings (for UI, API, content, documentation) had any normative value, and if so, should they be part of checkpoints or have a more formal status. This topic will be pursued.

Key References: none

Issue 434 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to override author-specified volumes

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:20:33 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Agree with reviewer (1) For 4.9, add an configuration option to override author-specified and UA default settings for global volume. (2) For 4.10, 4.12: Add Note after checkpoints to clarify that this includes override of author-specified volumes.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0071.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 433 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is "instantaneous"?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:19:31 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Agree with reviewer. Also, add a technique to allow configuration to allow manual access even when delay=0

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0071.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
I think allowing the user to control client-side redirection is valuable when a page is displayed for a time before the redirection takes place, but is less useful or important when the redirection is instantaneous. In that case it may be more annoying than helpful; after all, the redirection is supposed to be invisible to the user.

Key References: none

Issue 432 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:17:59 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Disagree. We distinguish blinking images from animated images and have different requirements for each (e.g., no need to slow down blinking).

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0071.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: 3.4 ("Allow the user to configure the user agent to render blinking images as motionless images") overlaps with 3.2 (make audio, video, and animation optional). IJ: In this document, we treat blinking images differently because they are not a sequence of animations. There is not the same requirement, for example, to slow down blinking images (as there is for animations).

Key References: none

Issue 431 (Second Last Call): New requirement: conforming UA must make available preferences through API

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:16:42 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No, since we don't have enough information today and not certain of accessibility rationale

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0071.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Please excuse me if I'm behind on the state of the art, but we had a discussion a while back as to whether there was any means to coordinate between the user agent and a plug-in or external rendering agent, so that the latter can adjust its presentation to the preferences set in the user agent (such as the preference setting to display animation as a still image). We would like to see user agents support such mechanisms.

This is the same as issue 429: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#429 Refer to Request to not include techniques http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0076.html

Key References: none

Issue 430 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:15:41 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary:

Adopt definition of animations that includes video and animations. Editorial changes follow.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/wai-ua-telecon-20010308.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Animation is a broader category than animated images. This checkpoint should apply to all animations, not just those that are commonly thought of when referring to "animated images".

Initially resolved to leave 3.2 as is (since unsure about what impact of turning animations off then on would be). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0071.html

Discussed at 1-2 March and still open what definition of "animation" is. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

Key References: none

Issue 429 (Second Last Call): New requirement: documentation of API for querying preferences.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:14:39 2000

Category of issue: Documentation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No new requirement (since no interoperable API available today). Mention importance of communication of preference in G5. Consider this for post UAAG 1.0. Talk to DOM WG about an API for this.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Expose user agent or global preference settings A user agent should provide a documented mechanism for scripts and plug-ins to query preference settings that affect accessibility. For example, if the user agent has an option to replace each animated image with a static images, a script or add-in that is designed for that user agent should be able to query that setting and use the value to adjust its own behavior.

Refer to request not to include techniques: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0076.html

Key References: none

Issue 428 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4)

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:13:32 2000

Category of issue: Documentation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No new requirement, but link 10.4 and 10.5 in techniques for 10.5. Also: in 10.2 and 10.4, change "promote accessibility" to "benefit accessibility".

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
0.5 Document product changes that affect accessibility: I would explicitly require product changes affecting accessibility to be referenced in the dedicated section of the documentation devoted to product accessibility (checkpoint 10.4).

Key References: none

Issue 427 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:12:35 2000

Category of issue: Documentation

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change. WCAG 1.0 does not require HTML for conformance. Today, we have no better stable reference.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: Provide documentation in accessible HTML: I believe that it is important for documentation to be available in accessible formats, but HTML is not the only accessible format. Also, if documentation is not extensive, then being in accessible but more cumbersome formats would be tolerable. In addition, it can be very difficult to produce an HTML version of documentation that was originally designed to be contextual help composed of many small topics and designed to be accessed directly or indexed rather than read sequentially. I would recommend documentation be provided as a separate HTML document, but I feel the requirement should just be to be in a format generally recognized as accessible. IJ: WCAG 1.0 does not require HTML

Key References: none

Issue 426 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this checkpoint

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:11:03 2000

Category of issue: Configuration

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: There are no binding complexity requirements as part of 9.8. Configuration requirements covered in 9.4 and 9.5

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: 9.8 Provide keyboard shortcuts for basic actions: Please clarify that providing brief key sequences rather than single keystrokes or key combinations satisfies this checkpoint. For example, in Internet Explorer the sequence of ALT+A followed by A will "add to favorites". That sequence actually displays and menu and activates the command on that menu, and no additional keyboard shortcut seems necessary. The checkpoint does not explicitly say that single-key or key combinations are required to comply. IJ: This checkpoint has been designed to be independent of the length of the activation sequence. Those requirements are covered by 9.4 and 9.5

Key References: none

Issue 425 (Second Last Call): Checkoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:10:05 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Editorial. Clarify how 9.5 is special case of 9.4 in note after 9.5

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
9.5A Allow remapping keyboard shortcuts: 9.5 ("Allow the user to assign a single-key binding to at least a majority of the functionalities available in the default keyboard configuration") seems entirely redundant to, albeit a subset of, 9.4 ("For any binding in the default keyboard configuration, allow the user to override it with a binding of a single key alone or with modifier keys"). If there is something additional here perhaps you could more clearly call it out.

Key References: none

Issue 424 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:09:16 2000

Category of issue: Configuration

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Bindings achieved through scripting not part of requirement. Mouse bindings *could* be included in a markup language or style sheets, but not found in today's technologies.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
9.3B List author-specified input shortcuts: Does this also require the user agent to display information about elements that take mouse input (e.g. via scripts)?

Key References: none

Issue 423 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf information presented.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:08:12 2000

Category of issue: Configuration

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: For 9.3, min req is single location where all shortcuts located (e.g., list of bindings).

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
9.3A List author-specified input shortcuts: The techniques should make clear whether it is sufficient to provide a separate list of keyboard shortcuts, or whether they need to be displayed in the user interface and/or document itself. Resolved at 4 Jan 2001 teleconf: b) For 9.1, (which is P1), distributed solution ok (e.g., information available in menus). Note that if the default config is the current config (and user can't change), then 10.3 requirement ensures that 9.1 is satisfied. c) Do not add in-context rendering as a P3 checkpoint. d) Add in-context rendering and configurability to techniques.

Key References: none

Issue 422 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active element/focus + techniques

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:07:07 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Editorial. We agree with reviewer. Adopted wording part of resolution to issue 421.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
8.8 Highlight and identify active elements: This seems to be confusing the concepts of 'active elements' and 'focus'. The checkpoint wording seems to state that the user agent should provide a way for users to easily identify all the visible active elements (for example, providing an option to draw a consistent, recognizable border around all links, command buttons, and so forth). However, the Techniques imply that it is sufficient to allow the user to configure how the element with focus is displayed. That is not only different from the checkpoint, but it is less useful (since the user would have to navigate through all elements to identify those that are active) and already covered in 4.17.

Key References: none

Issue 421 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 23:02:04 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: (1) Implement selection/focus according to system conventions." to a P1 G5 checkpoint. (2) Delete remainder of 8.6. Refer also to issue 348

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
8.6 Support system standards for selection and focus: The checkpoint reads "Implement selection, content focus, and user interface focus mechanisms. Implement them according to system conventions... This checkpoints refers to the logical selection and focus...," but I'm afraid that this one is very vague to me, so I recommend adding further clarification. What exactly are you trying to require? Discussion 21 December http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html RESOLVED: Move second sentence of 8.6 to Guideline 5 as a P1 requirement (already the case). Use wording consistent with checkpoint 5.8. Proposed (but NOT resolved): Delete requirement to implement selection as part of 8.6 (there are no accessibility requirements that rely on selection).

Key References: none

Issue 420 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for confirmation when activating a fee link

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:59:39 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Adopt proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0458, plus keep highlight checkpoint P2

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
8.3B Allow configuring highlighting of links that invoke a fee: You may want to add a recommendation that the user agent provide an option to prompt for confirmation when the user activates a link that invokes a fee. That fits into the general usability principle of "forgiveness," meaning allowing easy recovery from incorrect actions.

Resolved not to add at 21 dec teleconf: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html

Request to reopen from Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0458.html

Three implementation reports that the configuration requirement already implemented: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0012.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0068.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0070.html

Key References: none

Issue 419 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:56:04 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change. - The highlighting of fee links is not temporary, it's a static rendering option (unlike selection and focus). The checkpoint says that a fee link is recognized through markup. There is no reflow necessary. - Per the face-to-face meeting, the default styling must not rely on color alone, must be different from the default styling of selection and focus, and must not differ from them in color alone.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
8.3A Allow configuring highlighting of links that invoke a fee: I recommend removing the reference to "fonts" from the passage "For graphical viewports, offer at least three rendering options, including colors and fonts. Allow the user to select from among the range of system colors and fonts." Requiring the option to use a specific font face for temporary highlighting is unrealistic as it may often require the entire document to reflow and repaginate, taking up far too much time as well as being very confusing. This is also true of changing font size and some other text formatting, such as bold, expanded, and condensed.

Key References: none

Issue 418 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:54:53 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Resolved: No change. You don't want to search on "alt" text this unless it's rendered, otherwise this will be disoriented (this already discussed and built into current wording). This is already stated in the techniques document.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: 7.5C Allow searching rendered text: When searching a document, the user agent should also search equivalent text (such as ALT text of images).
IJ: No, don't search on this unless it's rendered, otherwise will be disoriented (this already discussed and built into current wording).
IJ: There is an issue on the side about whether rendered BUT silent/invisible is a problem. Action IJ to write to WG about this.

Key References: none

Issue 417 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from beginning without alert

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:49:14 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: 1) Add a minreq that if wrapping supported in search functionality, then must alert when wrapping. Note: prompting not required.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
.5A Allow searching rendered text: Should add that the user agent should not automatically start searching from the beginning of the document after reaching the end, unless you inform the user before doing so. Such "wrapping" around the end of the document is very disorienting, and most users don't even realize they have started over.

Key References: none

Issue 416 (Second Last Call): Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:47:58 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change. Selection is a functionality covered by checkpoints 1.1 and 1.3. This is already in the techniques document.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: 7.4B Allow navigating only to active elements: I consider it more likely that user agents will omit the ability to select text with the keyboard than that they will omit the ability to move quickly between active elements. (For example, Internet Explorer lacks the former but has the latter ability.) And yet, the latter is a checkpoint and the former is not. That does not seem appropriate to me. <p> IJ: This requirement is covered by checkpoints and 1.1 and 1.3 IJ:

Key References: none

Issue 415 (Second Last Call): Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4)

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:47:07 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: No change. Selection is not used to identify active elements

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0430.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Allow navigating only to active elements: The definition of active elements is a bit vague. By the current definition, the only things that are not active elements are static text, static graphics, blank space, and disabled controls. Everything else takes input: read-only text could be considered to have a default action of becoming selected, and selected text
From minutes: "[S]election is not part of determining what an "active element" is, since the definition states that what constitutes an active element derives from the format specification. Selection is a user agent functionality, not defined by the format specification. Another way to say this is that authors provide active elements, and what is active depends on format specs. That's different from what the user agent offers." might be considered to have a default action of copying the text to the clipboard. I do not believe that is what you intended when discussing navigating only to active elements. It would work, of course; one could imagine navigating through a document and putting focus on each range of text that separates other elements that take input, but you would not want navigation through "active elements" to include every character in such text because then you're not really skipping much, and so not significantly speeding up navigation.

Key References: none

Issue 414 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:46:24 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No change for now. Will ask Greg for more information on what he would consider a minimal requirement

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
I feel that the minimum requirements to comply with this checkpoint are too low. It says "If the author has not specified a navigation order, allow at least forward sequential navigation of elements, in document order." If a user agent were to provide only this method of keyboard navigation, I would not want it to be considered accessible. That would definitely be a case where it would be so cumbersome as to be considered unusable.

Key References: none

Issue 413 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:45:55 2000

Category of issue: Scope of Guidelines

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: 1) We agree, this is only for content. 2) The checkpoint is in a section on checkpoints for content. 3) Even covered in checklist.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Use W3C standards where appropriate: I recommend you clarify in the checkpoint wording that it only applies to content. For example, HTML could be used for presenting user agent UI, but we would not want to imply that such is required. Right now the scope (that it applies specifically to content) is only conveyed by headings between the guidelines, but is not evident from the wording of the guideline itself, and thus is lost if the guideline is quoted out of context.

Key References: none

Issue 412 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and second sentences.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:43:30 2000

Category of issue: OS Conventions

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Add "that benefit accessibility" to end of second sentence.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Follow operating system conventions that benefit accessibility: The first sentence is great, but the second ("In particular, follow conventions for user interface design, keyboard configuration, product installation, and documentation") makes too many assumptions when listing specific OS conventions and saying they benefit accessibility on all platforms and situations. Operating system standards do not always support accessibility. For example, one could imagine that on some platforms it is standard to not provide keyboard UI for some operations, or where the standard documentation format or installer are not the most easy to use for people with disabilities. I recommend softening the wording to say that those examples "often" or "usually" benefit accessibility and in those cases should be followed.

Key References: none

Issue 411 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface with overlapping viewports

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:42:53 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: 1) Definition of "graphical" already includes text-based. 2) Add to end of first sentence "with which it overlaps".

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.21B Allow keeping the focus viewport on top: 4.21 is not relevant only to graphical user interfaces, but to any agent that supports overlapping viewports. This can be supported in character-based environments such as MS-DOS.

Key References: none

Issue 410 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:41:56 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Delete second sentence of 4.21 since redundant with 4.20.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.21A Allow keeping the focus viewport on top: 4.21 seems redundant to 4.20; if you notify the user and don't open the viewport automatically, that is nearly equivalent to opening it but not giving it focus.

Key References: none

Issue 409 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:40:41 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: 1) Add last sentence: "If a viewport includes other viewports, then this requirement only applies to the topmost viewport." 2) Add a Note that other requirements still apply to sub-viewports.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: 4.20C Allow the user to control opening and closing of viewports: I fear that many pages will fail to work well if the user does not allow frames to open. In that case, should the user agent render the noframes equivalent, or simply hope the user will eventually open the new frame? IJ: The UA isn't forced to suppress opening frames, so I think this just requires clarification.

Key References: none

Issue 408 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not force manual open.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:39:42 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Editorial: Add a clarification.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.20B Allow the user to control opening and closing of viewports: Should also allow merely prompting for confirmation, rather than forcing the user to open the viewport manually (as is indicated by the current wording).

Key References: none

Issue 407 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic closing of viewports

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:38:53 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: 1) Accept reviewer's proposal as a P3 requirement: Allow configuration to not close windows except with user confirmation. 2) Evaluate later if we want to raise the priority.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.20A Allow the user to control opening and closing of viewports: If the user agent should let the user control opening of viewports, should they not also control automatic closing of viewports? The current wording only requires that the user be able to manually close a viewport, not that they should be able to prevent automatic or script-directed closing of the viewport. I would add the latter.

Key References: none

Issue 406 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:38:16 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Due to orientation issue, this should remain a P2.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.18 Make optional whether focus moves automatically to new viewports: I see this a beneficial but only important enough to warrant priority 3 instead of 2. If, for example, an aid tells the user a new viewport has the focus, and if the OS allows returning to the previous window with a single keystroke, this seems like an annoyance rather than a serious obstacle.

Key References: none

Issue 405 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish selection/focus

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:37:36 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Adopt revised wording in minutes and combine 4.16 and 4.17

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0420.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
.17 Allow configuring focus highlighting: The default highlight for focus should not only differ from that used for selection, but they must both be discernable when applied to the same text. For example, you cannot have selection indicated by blue and focus by red, or by small and large, because text could not be displayed with both attributes at the same time.

Key References: none

Issue 404 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big performance hit, reflow.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:36:27 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: 1) For checkpoints 4.16, 4.17, 8.2, 8.3, remove the minimal font requirement since accessibility benefit uncertain. (The performance hit is a separate issue. 2) If fonts are used for highlighting in any of these four checkpoints, user must be able to configure the text decoration characteristics (but not font family and font size due to reflow issues). 3) The highlighting mechanism must not rely on color alone (per issue 353) 4) For four checkpoints, default highlights must be different.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0383.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.16 Allow configuring selection highlighting: Requiring the option to use a specific font face for selected text is unrealistic as it may often require the entire document to reflow and repaginate, taking up far too much time as well as being very confusing. This is also true of changing font size and some other text formatting, such as bold, expanded, and condensed. Therefore I would make it optional, rather than required, that the user be allowed to select those attributes for highlighting. This also applies to 4.17 (allow configuring focus highlighting) and 8.2 (allow configuring highlighting of recently visited links).

Key References: none

Issue 403 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of author-specified speeds.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:35:54 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No change to checkpoint. 1) If speech engine allows user override, that's the speech engine's functionality, not the UAs. 2) We don't require content transformations to strip them out before sending to the speech engine.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0383.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 402 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for one wpm case)

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:35:07 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: This issue is subsumed by resolution of issue 328

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0383.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
The statement "The user must be able to increase or decrease the playback rate in increments of 5% of the current playback rate" leads to problems. If the engine allows the user to select a speed of one wpm, then this wording requires them to support increments of .05 wpm, which is clearly not useful to the user.

Key References: none

Issue 401 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a separate

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:33:06 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: 1) This issue is subsumed by resolution of issue 328 2) We talked about the general topic of UAAG 1.0 requirements applied to the UI as part of issue 3.8, discussed at 30 November teleconf 3) Indicate in checkpoint 5.8 techniques the problem of conflicts between synthesized speech engines - notably on multitasking systems. Action JG: Propose text for the techniques document about synthesized speech implementation issues.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0383.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Allow configuring speech playback speed: This checkpoint is ambiguous and confusing because it mixes two different issues. I recommend it be broken up into one checkpoint that keeps the first sentence ("Allow the user to configure and control synthesized speech playback rate according to the full range offered by the speech synthesizer"), but that the remaining sentences (which specify the desired minimum ranges) be broken out into a second checkpoint targeting providers of hardware- or software-based speech synthesizers, because user agents usually have no control over the range of speeds provided by the speech synthesizers available on a given system. Breaking it out in this way would limit its applicability to those UA manufacturers who provide their own speech system and thus do have control over the supported ranges.

Key References: none

Issue 400 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to play simultanously?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:31:03 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change. IJ will add a clarifying note to 4.11 that if you allow independent control of all sources of audio, you satisfy the checkpoint as well.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0383.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: 4.11 Allow independent confguring volumes of audio sources: Why is this limited to sources that are synchronized to play simultaneously? Shouldn't it apply to all sources? If the restriction is removed, 4.13 (allow speech volume to be controlled independently) would be reduced to a special case of 4.11. IJ: You can use the global volume control checkpoint when audio played separately.

Key References: none

Issue 399 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this?

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:30:23 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change. 1) We don't have commitments from vendors to implement this. 2) We are looking for implementation experience (e.g., for SMIL). 3) Please note that if a format doesn't support positioning of captions, the UA doesn't require user control over the position. 4) We maintain the P1 requirement.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0383.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.7 Allow positioning of transcripts and captions: I still feel this seems very difficult to implement. Have UA vendors signed up to meet this requirement? (I also feel it is more appropriate as Pri 2; I will defer to the group since you discussed it at length and decided to stay with Pri 1, but I remain unconvinced.)

Key References: none

Issue 398 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not recognized as style"

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:28:48 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: a) clarify "recognize style" b) need more rational - refer to WCAG - style less important than other content c) add note 4.5 - give example of multimedia content that can be recognized as style

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Allow configuring presentation speed: Define "not recognized as style" in the sentence "Allow the user to slow the presentation rate of audio, video and animations that are not recognized as style." I cannot figure out what this means, nor why you would want to not allow the user to override attributes of things that fit that category. Or, if you mean "Allow...and animations that are not recognized. Use styles to make this configurable" then you should restructure the sentence to make that clearer. This is also an issue with 4.6, and affects 4.8 and 4.9.
IJ: Judy Brewer also asked for clarification about the meaning of 4.5 and 4.5

Key References: none

Issue 397 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to define "system colors"

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:27:08 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: We mean range of colors supported by the system, Ian will add clarification to the note

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.3 Allow configuring text colors: You need to define "system colors", as this has a very specific meaning in the Windows operating system (the list of colors that the user has assigned to system UI elements) that is not the same as what you mean (the range of colors supported by the system). This affects several UAAG checkpoints.

Key References: none

Issue 396 (Second Last Call): New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:25:50 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: a) we are not including a general resizing requirement in UAAG 1.0 b) conformance to some specs requires resizing (e.g. SVG) c) conformance to some specs also requires override of author supplied info (e.g. CSS)

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
4.1 Allow configuring font sizes: My experience is that allowing the user to override font sizes is extremely useful, but also can also cause some pages to become unusable if they specify the size or location of elements in absolute values (for example, width="100px"). I believe that in order to make adjustable font sizes truly usable, the user should also be able to instruct the user agent to override all absolute sizes.

Key References: none

Issue 395 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:23:57 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Yes.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: I recommend expanding the wording of the checkpoint to make explicit that they should provide be configurable to replace the graphic with a textual equivalent or repair text, rather than merely omitting it. This is in techniques but I think it is key enough that it should be in the checkpoint wording.

Refer to observation that placeholders should be in checkpoint 3.8: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0030.html

Discussed at 30 Nov teleconf: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364

Per this discussion, add a note to 5.8 suggesting that content requirements of this document be considered (but not required) for the user interface as well (e.g., no blinking in the UI).

Key References: none

Issue 394 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:22:32 2000

Category of issue: Views

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Per proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0249.html

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: I feel the description of 2.1 is too vague on exactly what portions of the content are satisfied by providing a document source view. You say it's good enough for some things, but not everything, and give a few examples but no clear guidance on how to extrapolate to other cases.

Resolved editorial at AOL ftf: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

Refer to proposal from Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0043.html

Refer to rationale for proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0065.html

Resolved: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html Add a source view requirement with certain restrictions, in addition to other views

But Al protests: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0189.html

Key References: none

Issue 393 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other programmatic means.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:21:11 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: issue being addressed in response to issue 326

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0364.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
if a platform defines more than one API for exposing screen content, do you have to use the one that also draws text to the screen? I believe the answer is no, because on some platforms that API may not be the one that AT devices can monitor, and it may not provide as much information as another API. The key, in my opinion, is that applications should do what is best for accessibility, which is not always what is the standard convention, but will instead vary from one platform to another, and over time as different API become commonly used and supported by AT.

Key References: none

Issue 392 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:19:58 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Adopt proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0042

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
GL: I feel this is too broad, and that you should clarify what is the responsibility of the user agent, the operating system, and third-party accessibility aids. For example, clarify whether each agent is be required to provide an on-screen keyboard if they run on a platform that does not have one generally available. Is it sufficient if one is available commercially? IJ: This is simply a conformance issue. You can make a claim in conjunction with a commercial piece of software that's available.

=============================

Discussed issue at 30 November 2000 telecon, need implementation experience for keyboard ways of handling pointer events

Proposal from Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0042.html

Key References: none

Issue 391 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to reimplement input methods.

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:19:02 2000

Category of issue: Device Independence

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: See resolution of issue 345

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Discussed at 28 Novemeber telecon

Key Reference URLs:

   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345

   http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/wai-ua-telecon-20001128.html

Issue 390 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing approach

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:18:13 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: See resolution of issue 345

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
In particular, I disagree with the implication that a user agent must take an "all or nothing" approach to each input modality: according to the current wording it's OK to support no functionality by mouse or voice, but if you use them for anything you have to use them for everything. I consider keyboard to be the only required input method on the Windows platform, and feel it's acceptable to support other input methods only for selected shortcuts. I firmly believe that browsers will begin supporting voice input natively but only for a limited set of tasks. If you do not change this checkpoint, they will end up ignoring it.

=====================

Discussed at 28 November telecon. Checkpoint 1.1 is being modified, per issue 345

Key Reference URLs:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354.html

Issue 389 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion

Name: Greg Lowney

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 22:16:29 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: (1) UAAG 1.0 is not technology specific (2) Additional documents that are technology specific would make (automated) testing easier (3) Other WAI WGs also addressing this issue (4) We expect to do some usability testing on the document with developers less familiar with the document.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0137.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
As has been suggested before, I think a good steps would include: clearly label techniques as minimal requirements vs. recommendations vs. examples; clearly indicate when user agents need to implement all of the requirements, any one of the requirements, or select between groups of requirements that need to be implemented together; clearly prioritize optional steps; and give examples of how a person would evaluate a product for compliance. Priority 1 - High

Discussed on 28 November telecon. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354 Refer to comments from Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0038.html

Key Reference URLs:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354.html

Issue 388 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.7: Raise priority to P1

Name: Earl Johnson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0295.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 21:06:17 2000

Category of issue: Configuration

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: the working had discussed this issue in the past, and while we understand that this feature is highly desirable, it would not impede someone from using the user agent, although it may be difficult to use if the user has to keep re-configuring.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
> 9.7 ... > Saving user preferences is an important usability requirement > that every user has, it goes far beyond accessibility. Consider > bumping this checkpoint up to a P1.

Key References: none

Issue 387 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.4: Where do labels come from? XML/HTML?

Name: Earl Johnson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0295.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 21:05:19 2000

Category of issue: Orientation

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Adopt proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0032

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Discussed 28 Nov http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354.html Refer to proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0032.html

Key References: none

Issue 386 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.4: Move example to Note

Name: Earl Johnson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0295.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 21:03:07 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change. This checkpoint is about communication with other software (about the UI).

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: This is part of checkpoint per previous resolution of an issue raised by Rich Schwerdtfeger.

Key References: none

Issue 385 (Second Last Call): Add requirement that component size increases when objects contained increase size?

Name: Earl Johnson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0295.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 21:01:18 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: We do not have a general requirement. Although, some specifications if supported by the UA require this behaviour. Issue for next version of the guidelines.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-385

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
> Under UI checkpoints for guideline #4 ... > A regular access related guideline in UI styleguides is that > the size of the components should scale when the size of the > object it contains (e.g. a lable or graphic) changes. This > point doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the checkpoints in > this section. Consider adding this point to an existing > checkpoint or crafting a new one specifically for it.

Key References: none

Issue 384 (Second Last Call): Editorial Checkpoint 3.3: Add an example of stock quote ticker

Name: Earl Johnson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0295.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:46:42 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Resolved per issue 363

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-384

First working draft: No reference

Comments:

Refer to proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0032

proposal accepted 11 jan http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

Key References: none

Issue 383 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.2: Add definition of "placeholder"

Name: Earl Johnson

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0295.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:45:17 2000

Category of issue: Definition

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Add a definition ; In this definition indicate if non-text element, requires a text equivalent per 1.5

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-383

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 382 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used).

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:30:51 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: This checkpoint is not about scripts

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Adobe comment: In practice this requirement would be extremely difficult to meet. With the prevalence of scripting and the evolution of design techniques that intentionally separate the user interface from the underlying functionality of web content applications, there are increasing instances where implementing Guideline 3.2 would be impossible. Adobe strongly urges the working group to reconsider this guideline or alternatively demote its priority ranking.

Discussed at 17 Nov ftf http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-382

IJ has asked Adobe for more information. Request acknowledged on 8 January 2001 (private email to IJ). Awaiting reply.

Key References: none

Issue 381 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.5: Checkpoint text needs clarification

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:31:44 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Configuration part (same); Generation part (same); When to do this part: Whenever a (recognized) required equivalent is missing. ; Try to clarify language as well...

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-381

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 380 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.3: What if equivalency relationship unknowable by format?

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:30:51 2000

Category of issue: Alternative content

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Techniques to satisfy 2.3 do not have to be screen-position based; Option three (query) is based on the logical document structure. ; If you don't know where the equivalents are in the content at all, then the format is problematic per checkpoint 6.2.; Note that 2.3 is not simply about access to all alternatives (that's 2.1), it's about knowing close relationships among alternatives.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-380

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Adobe comment: There is an underlying assumption that the user agent is providing access to HTML or a similarly simple structured markup language. In cases of non-structured content, providing access to equivalents as described in this guideline is very difficult. For example, recent versions of Adobe PDF allow text equivalents for elements. These equivalents are accessible to screen readers and other assistive technologies. However, when a page is rendered on the screen, it is extremely difficult to identify the coordinates at which an equivalency target will be represented and to provide human-readable access to the equivalent in an accurate context. <p> IJ: This is covered by an applicability provision.

Key References: none

Issue 379 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.2: Exception when primary output (e.g., graphics) cannot be handled by the OS?

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:27:12 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: resolved this per resolution for issue 323.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-379

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Adobe comment: It is not possible for user agent vendors to meet this requirement in cases where the primary output is graphical data that cannot be handled by the platform. For example, there are cases in which the output supported by the user agent is not text but a graphic rendering, and to provide an optimum experience for users, user agent vendors must use their own APIs. In the case of SVG and PDF, the content author has the ability to use equivalents, which Adobe believes are the appropriate place to provide data through assistive technologies using the platform APIs. Adobe encourages the working group to consider the addition of wording that communicates this alternative.

Key References: none

Issue 378 (Second Last Call): Simplify language of document for non-technical audience.

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:26:02 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: The reviewer's comment is very broad. The reviewer is invited to send specific editorial changes.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-378

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Simplification of wording for non-technical audiences Adobe recognizes that the User Agent Guidelines are written for an audience of varying degrees of technical expertise. Additionally, WAI standards are a key component of guidelines and legal requirements dictating purchasing and technology decisions made by non-technical individuals. For this reason Adobe strongly encourages the working group to provide examples and clarifications that can assist a non-technical individual who is tasked with making a purchase or usage decision to fairly and accurately evaluate the options the market provides.

Key References: none

Issue 377 (Second Last Call): Security issues and communication with other software

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:25:07 2000

Category of issue: Security

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: The WG agrees that security issues are important, but does not agree that they should preclude accessibility.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-377

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Security considerations Adobe would like to raise awareness of the issue that the current state of the art of accessibility is insecure with regards to digital content. Common techniques used to make digital content accessible to assistive technologies expose that content to extraction re-use and manipulation by other, potentially nefarious technologies. There are no established standards for differentiating between a trusted assistive technology and an untrusted technology seeking access. Adobe strongly encourages the WAI to educate its constituency and end-users of its guidelines on this current limitation, making it clear that there will be cases in which a user agent may have to deny access to content in the interest of security. It is Adobe's assertion that user agents must respect the security intentions of content authors and owners. Adobe also encourages the WAI to work toward developing solutions that simultaneously would permit security and accessibility.

Key References: none

Issue 376 (Second Last Call): Requirement that plug-ins be given focus

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:23:34 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: If the plug-in is part of a conformance claim, covered by 7.l; A requirement for applications to provide and/or not steal UI focus is out of scope for this document and doesn't seem to be an accessibility issue.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-376

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Support of plug-ins dependent on user agents for access Although the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines provide a means for a developer to insure that a single user agent can be certified as accessible, the reality of the Web viewing experience is that the majority of user agents operate within the context of other user agents developed by other vendors. Because of this factor, the entire user agent ecosystem must be accessible for the end user to derive a benefit from the work done to make any single user agent accessible. For example, a plug-in such as the Adobe SVG Viewer could conform with all the requirements outlined in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, but unless the host user agent (ie. Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator) provides appropriate support (ie. providing focus) for the accessibility features implemented by the Viewer, the Viewer is rendered inaccessible. Adobe encourages the working group to consider guidelines or wording in existing guidelines specifically addressing the responsibility of the host user agent to allow end users to fully benefit from the accessibility features of user agents operating within the context of the host user agent. Also, with respect to checkpoint 5.1: Adobe comment: Fulfillment of this requirement is dependent on the ability of a single user agent or assistive technology to function within the ecosystem of a host user agent. Adobe strongly encourages the working group to consider requirements that reward host user agent vendors for providing adequate support for user agents reliant on those host user agents to provide a positive accessible experience for end users.

Key References: none

Issue 375 (Second Last Call): Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality?

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 19:59:53 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: The WG believes this issues is addressed by the resolution to issue 323. Also, for the keyboard: it's possible to claim conformance for a user agent in conjunction with software that emulates mouse input through the keyboard.

Resolution URL: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#323

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Recognition of limitations of standard APIs Several of the requirements refer to interoperability with standard APIs. However, there are many cases where the standard API is not sufficient to preserve the content author's intent. For example, text on a path cannot be adequately represented using standard APIs. In such a case, the author's intent can be preserved by rasterizing the text, and accessibility provided by associating an alternative text description of that element. Adobe encourages the working group to consider, where appropriate, wording to acknowledge limitations of standard APIs and permit implementations that can preserve the author's intent as well as provide an accessible alternative. Adobe comment: Standard operating system APIs are not always adequate when providing certain levels of functionality, and not all user interface elements can be meaningfully replaced with keyboard equivalents. For example, pen and brush tools used for freehand drawing cannot be adequately replaced by keystrokes. <p> IJ: Note that the last comment is addressed explicitly in checkpoint 1.1 (and 1.3 is a special case).

Key References: none

Issue 374 (Second Last Call): Definition: Selection, current selection and use of inflected speech.

Name: Richard Premack

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0305.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:13:40 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Editorial, AG and IJ: Work on new wording.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-374

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
> The suggestion that selected content should be rendered as "inflected > speech" by a speech synthesis system is somewhat questionable. Speech > inflection occurs many times within normal speech and in addition, > what constitutes inflection is neither speaker nor listener > independent. In other words, what one listener feels is inflected > speech may seem normal to another listener and vice-versa. There may > be no reliable method of conveying selected content when human speech > is involved, other than possibly volume changes or marker tones, the > latter being fairly common.

Key References: none

Issue 373 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1

Name: Richard Premack

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0305.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 20:10:37 2000

Category of issue: Documentation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Group felt that this is an important P2 requirement, but the P1 issue was document accessibility.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
> This Priority 2 checkpoint recommends documenting changes in user > agent and/or assistive technology software, as a result of software > upgrades, that affect accessibility. This seems to be at least as > significant as documenting accessibility features (checkpoint 10.2) > which has been given a Priority 1 ranking. > > Undisclosed changes in accessibility feature availability and or > operation as a result of software upgrades can be disorienting to a > user that has become accustom to certain feature behavior. For this > reason, I would recommend raising this checkpoint to Priority 1 > status.

Key References: none

Issue 372 (Second Last Call): Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality?

Name: Dianna Callesen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 19:59:53 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Resolved per issue 323.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-372

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Recognition of limitations of standard APIs Several of the requirements refer to interoperability with standard APIs. However, there are many cases where the standard API is not sufficient to preserve the content author's intent. For example, text on a path cannot be adequately represented using standard APIs. In such a case, the author's intent can be preserved by rasterizing the text, and accessibility provided by associating an alternative text description of that element. Adobe encourages the working group to consider, where appropriate, wording to acknowledge limitations of standard APIs and permit implementations that can preserve the author's intent as well as provide an accessible alternative. Adobe comment: Standard operating system APIs are not always adequate when providing certain levels of functionality, and not all user interface elements can be meaningfully replaced with keyboard equivalents. For example, pen and brush tools used for freehand drawing cannot be adequately replaced by keystrokes. <p> IJ: Note that the last comment is addressed explicitly in checkpoint 1.1 (and 1.3 is a special case).

Key References: none

Issue 371 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.8: Priority should be raised from P2 to P1

Name: Richard Premack

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0305.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:38:54 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: We do not consider that rendering speed is not sufficient to make a requirement a P1 requirement.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-371

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to previous discussions on this (issue 264) http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#264

Key References: none

Issue 370 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.6: Clarification required on how important elements identified

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0302.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 19:28:12 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Editorial, AG and IJ: Work on new wording.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-370

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 369 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.4: Conformance possible if you can't get to elements with event handlers?

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0301.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 18:01:38 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Clarify that active elements must be identifiable through markup. Add to definition of active element; Add a Note to in the definition that styling events are out of scope. This is only about scripting events.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-369

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 368 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 10.1: Use relative priority

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0299.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 18:00:04 2000

Category of issue: Documentation

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: We disagree with the reviewer, documentation is important at the double-A level, WCAG is a reference document, not a dependent document

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-368

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 367 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.2: Clarification required for cross-platform implementations, published APIs, more

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0298.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:59:00 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: The WG agrees that 1.2 is not limited to operating system APIs; Point three in Phill's note is editorial and should be considered.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-367

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 366 (Second Last Call): Editorial: Please put direct links to WAI resources.

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0297.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:57:11 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Put in references to WAI resources

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-366

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 365 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.12: Re-evaluate priority of increase/decrease and allow other techniques (also, other issues)

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0296.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:52:18 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Resolved per issue 328.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-365

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 364 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.5: Add plug-ins, clarify that on a resource-level (not element-level)

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0293.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:51:07 2000

Category of issue: Scripting events

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Add "plug-ins" to 3.5; Add note clarifying that this is a resource-level, not element level, requirement.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-364

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 363 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.3: What if scripts used for blinking? (also, other issues)

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0292.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:49:08 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Limit the scope to properties that can be recognized. The UA can't recognize a script that can cause blinking (e.g., by hiding, then showing text, or causing a marquee effect).

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-363

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Issues: - Recognized in scripts - Additional rationale (editorial) - Proposed default setting of 'on'

Key References: none

Issue 362 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.7: Clarifications required (e.g., is this an accessibility issue?)

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0290.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:47:58 2000

Category of issue: Natural language

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Refer also to issue 329.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-362

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 361 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long / consider ease-of-use

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0289.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:41:21 2000

Category of issue: Speech

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Adopt JG proposal for note on speech labels and voice characteristics, with editorial modifications

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0354.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to proposal from Jon: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0332.html

Key Reference URLs:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0332.html

Issue 360 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.2: What if time interval controlled by server? What about security issues?

Name: Phill Jenkins

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0288.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:38:54 2000

Category of issue: Multimedia

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Because we are not sure how this would appear in scripts, limit 2.2 to timed effects that are specified in markup (not scripts); Indicate some examples of timed effects in markup: SMIL, HTML/META

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-360

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Also: Need more examples to show what's expected.

Key References: none

Issue 359 (Second Last Call): Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?)

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0266.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:35:54 2000

Category of issue: Definition

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Per proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0249.html

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer also to issue 358.

Key References: none

Issue 358 (Second Last Call): Definition: Equivalent

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0265.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:34:40 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Per proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0249.html

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to question about binding requirements to disabilities: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0306.html

Key References: none

Issue 357 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content properties

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0264.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:29:14 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Accept proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0019

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0083.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ proposal to narrow scope of this provision to specific checkpoints: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0283.html Refer to Adobe's comments essentially in favor of such a provision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html In particular, how it relates to checkpoints 3.1, 4.3, and 4.4 Action IJ and AG: Revise the applicability provision and send to WG. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-357 Proposal from IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0019.html

Key References: none

Issue 356 (Second Last Call): Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations"

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0261.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:23:24 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Make editorial change

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-356

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 355 (Second Last Call): Conformance: OS features used must be accessible

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0267.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:16:38 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Editoral clarification required

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-355

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to believe that current text sufficient: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0284.html

Key References: none

Issue 354 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard / viewport

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0260.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:14:47 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Editors descretion

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-354

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Similar commment from Greg Lowney http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0310.html Allow searching rendered text: The wording is using the terms "viewport" and "point of regard" inconsistently with other uses in the document. I believe the sentence that describes searching "all text within the viewport, both inside and outside the point of regard" should read "all text within the document associated with the viewport, whether or not the text falls within the visible area of the viewport." This is more consistent with the use of terms in 4.19, for example, which reads "Ensure that when a viewport's selection or content focus changes, it is in the viewport after the change."

Key References: none

Issue 353 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement.

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.orghttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0259.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 17:12:27 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Yes. Part of resolution for issue 348.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: This is already part of the checkpoint. AG: Editorial? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0285.html Refer to proposal from IJ based on AG discussions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0459.html

Key References: none

Issue 352 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable?

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0262.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 16:29:32 2000

Category of issue: none specified

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Clarify that the purpose of the checkpoint is the context provided by an outline; User agent developers may make this navigable (use positive, not negative, language to make the link to 7.6).

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-352

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to comments by Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0311.html

Key References: none

Issue 351 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG definitions

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0258.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 16:28:07 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: We note AG's comment. We don't have new data that leads us to think that a change is necessary.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-351

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to reply from IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0277.html - ATAG has different definitions as well.

Key References: none

Issue 350 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4?

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0257.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 16:27:08 2000

Category of issue: Navigation

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: No change to the document, even though the WG appreciates the clarification about the minimal requirement to activate active elements.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-350

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to IJ reply on different priorities: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0274.html

Key References: none

Issue 349 (Second Last Call): New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently informative in 6.2)

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0263.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 14:49:30 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Refer to resolution of issue 324.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-349

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: How to show that support for deprecated features particularly important for users with disabilities (need to document this).

Key References: none

Issue 348 (Second Last Call): Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard (state v. interaction)

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0255.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 14:44:50 2000

Category of issue: User-control of Style

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Adopt proposal to factor out default style requirements for default text, active elements, recently visited links, selection, and focus. (Refer to proposal from Ian). Also, additional min req for highlighting requirement: one mechanism (unspecified) other than color.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0011.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Action IJ: Propose new checkpoints to see how it feels to harmonize the requirements. If the WG isn't thrilled, we will leave document as is. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-348

Key References: none

Issue 347 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable? What is definition?

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0254.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 14:39:21 2000

Category of issue: Multimedia

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Define "render" to mean make available to the user through a viewport

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-347

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: Silent/Invisible meets the requirement of not interfering with user experience through the UI.

Key References: none

Issue 346 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3, leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0253.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 14:25:20 2000

Category of issue: Multimedia

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Done.

Resolution URL: Not resolved

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
AG: The UA checkpoint should be to give the user show/hide control over recognized elective content where elective content is recognized by the UA in accordance with the format specifications. [Defining content categories is WCA scope, not UA scope.] <p> IJ: But all of text transcripts, collated text transcripts, captions, and auditory descriptions are defined in WCAG 1.0 Proposed: LEave checkpoint as is and add note http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-346

Key References: none

Issue 345 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable?

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0252.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 14:21:17 2000

Category of issue: Device Independence

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: See minutes for details: Leave requirements, but change conformance claim options

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: Not all of our requirements are *easy* to verify. However, they must be clear in intent. Refer to suggested wording from WCAG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Key References: none

Issue 344 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0251.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 14:07:40 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Delete the reference to RFC2046. These are about data types, not the user experience.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-344

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
AG: Causes confusion since mapping imperfect.

Key References: none

Issue 343 (Second Last Call): Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia checkpoints v. continuous-time

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0251.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:58:29 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Editor descretion

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-343

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 342 (Second Last Call): Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0251.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:57:29 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Editorial descretion

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-342

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
AG: Better to say "Alert the user, according to the schedule specified by the author, whenever fresh content is available (to be obtained by such manual request)."

Key References: none

Issue 341 (Second Last Call): Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0251.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:56:12 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Refer to issue 329

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-341

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
AG: What is intended here can be correctly said "not to render text recognized as being in an unsupported natural language."

Key References: none

Issue 340 (Second Last Call): Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for informative cross-refs.

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0251.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:50:11 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Adopt the proposal

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-340

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 339 (Second Last Call): DOM Level 2 requirement for HTML since returned to Working Draft

Name: Ian Jacobs

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0273.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:38:26 2000

Category of issue: DOM

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: tor about this proposal on aproving both DOM 1 and DOM 2 at same time

Resolution URL: Not resolved

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
How to adjust DOM HTML requirement (e.g., ask for upgrade to UAAG 1.0 when DOM Level 2 HTML modules goes to PR). Action IJ:Talk to Director about this proposal on aproving both DOM 1 and DOM 2 at same time http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-339 Refer to proposal from IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0352.html

Key References: none

Issue 338 (Second Last Call): Editorial: Edits to Guideline 1 prose re: easy access

Name: Bryan Campbell

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0248.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:34:40 2000

Category of issue: Editorial

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Incorporate editorial change.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-338

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Edit existing sentence to refer more to easy access: "Keyboard operation (using as few keystrokes as is possible) of all functionalities offered through the user interface is one of the most important aspects of user agent accessibility on almost every platform."

Key References: none

Issue 337 (Second Last Call): Conformance: Implementing the standard API for the keyboard "after IME"

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:30:37 2000

Category of issue: Keyboard

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Change from singular to plural in 1.3 (standard APIs for the keyboard).

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-337

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Martin: There may be two APIs: Raw keys v. Final text after IME. The "after IME" API is the important one. Refer to (Member-only) discussion between DOM WG and I18N WG: http://www.w3.org/DOM/Group/meetings/m19991201.html Proposed (but not resolved): Change from singular to plural in 1.3 (standard APIs for the keyboard). Add note to highlight the international scenario. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-337

Key References: none

Issue 336 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.2: Delete "accessibility" from "OS accessibility conventions"?

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:29:06 2000

Category of issue: OS Conventions

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: In 9.2, change "avoid" to "do not provide" (or some similar wording that conveys a "must" requirement).

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-336

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
MD: It may not always be obvious how to identify that something is for accessibility reasons. Also, some things are clearly important to accessibility, but may not be labeled as such (e.g,. Alt-Tab to switch viewports).

Key References: none

Issue 335 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 9.5: Need to consider international input methods in single-key requirement

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:24:46 2000

Category of issue: Internationalization

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: No change to requirement. Perhaps add clarification that 9.5 is not about character input.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-335

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
- Some input method editors (IMEs) do character input in two stages (e.g., Chinese and Japanese). - Proposed: Add a technique to 1.2 about higher level APIs for character input: talk about "after IME" (i.e., what is important is the result of the combined strokes, not the individual strokes).

Key References: none

Issue 334 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 7.5: Input to search capability not always "plain text" (may be speech, braille)

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:22:07 2000

Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: This requires a clarification - matching within the character set of the document. For information about input, refer to the API checkpoints.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-334

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: I think this issue doesn't change our search requirements, but we can clarify that the input method to the search functionality may not always be text characters directly.

Key References: none

Issue 333 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.2: Clarification required about what "all text" means

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:20:36 2000

Category of issue: Internationalization

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: This is a clarification and the WG supports the proposal:

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-333

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Proposed: - Requirement is essentially the same but: - Clarify that the UA can choose another font family if it can't find a way to represent a particular character. - Clarify that the user must be able to select a preferred font family but that some content in a given document may not be rendered using that font family. Refer also to Adobe comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0294.html Adobe comment: The working group has underestimated the complexity of font usage. This guideline assumes a simplistic model of font usage that is adequate for simple documents, but does not take into account more complex documents and content forms. For example, there are many cases where substitute fonts would not have equivalent representations for specific characters. In these cases, the resulting content would be significantly less accessible than the original content.

Key References: none

Issue 332 (Second Last Call): Repair requirement for when author has not specified natural language of content?

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:16:28 2000

Category of issue: Natural language

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: P2 requirement for configuration of preferred dictionary.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-332

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Possible requirements (most important for speech UAs): - (Convenience): When author has not specified natural language information, the UA should choose the best option based on, e.g., charset information. - (Access): The UA must allow the user to select from available natural language support (e.g., select from all available dictionaries).

Key References: none

Issue 331 (Second Last Call): Add a requirement for configurability based on natural language preferences?

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:14:22 2000

Category of issue: Internationalization

Type of issue: Issue

Resolution summary: Add notes to checkpoints for speech rate and text rendering (4.1) indicating that the developer should consider per-language configurability.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-331

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Suppose you have a speech engine for fr and one for en. The user may want to specify different speech parameters for each. The most important configurations would be related to rendered text.

Key References: none

Issue 330 (Second Last Call): Definition: Natural language / Writing system / Script

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:09:43 2000

Category of issue: Natural language

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: See minutes of FTF

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-330

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
- For text-to-speech and text-to-braille, it's important that you know what natural language it is. - For graphical rendering of text, the language of the text is only of minor importance. What counts in the latter case is the "script". Proposed: (a) Distinguish cases in checkpoints if necessary (e.g., 7.5) (b) Add second definition of "script" to glossary From the unicode glossary: "A collection of symbols used to represent textual information in one or more writing systems." http://www.unicode.org/glossary/ Comments from Al: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0280.html

Key References: none

Issue 329 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification required about boundaries of "recognized but unsupported"

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:05:28 2000

Category of issue: Natural language

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Delete "marked up in a recognized but".

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-329

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 328 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 4.12: "Words" per minute bounds do not scale internationally.

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 13:03:12 2000

Category of issue: Internationalization

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Requirement: Allow the user to configure playback rate according to the range offered by the speech synthesizer.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-328

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Two issues here: a) Use of the word "word" b) The bounds provided are for English only (presumably).

Key References: none

Issue 327 (Second Last Call): Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API?

Name: Martin Duerst

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0243.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 12:52:04 2000

Category of issue: Internationalization

Type of issue: none specified

Resolution summary: Add a special case checkpoint to respond to internationalization request

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
DOM representation is always UTF-16, so our DOM requirement covers this for xml and html content. In effect, Martin proposed a requirement along the lines of: "When the UA passes information through an API, it must ensure that the information is converted per the encoding rules of that API" Refer to Francois Yergeau comments about accessibility issues surrounding proper charset support (and the need for automatic, not manual, support): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0245.html Refer to Al Gilman support for requirement: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0246.html <p> At Nov ftf meeting, decided to add a P1 requirement for proper support of character encodings for each supported API. You can't break text. http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-327 (Action IJ to talk to Martin Duerst about checkpoint wording).

Proposal from Ian reviewed by Martin: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0088.html

Key References: none

Issue 326 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 1.2: What if the standard APIs do the wrong thing?

Name: Karl Dubost

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0232.html

Date: Mon Nov 13 12:47:43 2000

Category of issue: Keyboard

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Resolved per issue 323

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-326

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
IJ: In checkpoint 5.8, we say to follow conventions that benefit accessibility. I'm not sure we can apply the same standard to APIs.

Key References: none

Issue 325 (Second Last Call): Checkpoint 5.5: API notification of content change in one viewport that causes change in another

Name: T.V. Raman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0216

Date: Mon Nov 13 12:43:08 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: This is covered as part of 5.5. Include as a Note or technique.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-325

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to Ian's reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0217.html Proposal: Include TV's proposal as an example for checkpoint 5.5

Key References: none

Issue 324 (Second Last Call): How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2

Name: Adobe

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0195.html

Date: Fri Nov 3 10:11:49 2000

Category of issue: Conformance

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: Adopt Ian's proposed changes

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0098.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Action IJ: Draft new language for 6.2, based on 1) Conform 2) Use w3c formats 3) Use formats that enable wcag-conformant authoring http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-324 Refer to proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0437.html

Key References: none

Issue 323 (Second Last Call): Using accessibility APIs rather than standard APIs to make non-W3C based content accessible

Name: Adobe

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0195.html

Date: Thu Nov 2 16:53:50 2000

Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility

Type of issue: Checkpoints

Resolution summary: equire implementation of available standard accessibility APIs, and where these APIs do not provide required functionality (by this document), support standard device APIs.

Resolution URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-323

First working draft: No reference

Comments:
Refer to WCAG comments on this checkpoint as well: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0365.html

Key References: none

Issue 322 (Second Last Call): The definition of the word element

Name: Eric Hansen

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0131.html

Date: Tue Oct 24 12:00:49 2000

Category of issue: Definition

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Resolved per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0249.html

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Issue 321 (Second Last Call): Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3

Name: Al Gilman

Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0085.html

Date: Fri Oct 20 18:51:28 2000

Category of issue: Alternative content

Type of issue: Definitions

Resolution summary: Resolved per proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0249.html

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0258.html

First working draft: No reference

Comments: none

Key References: none

Index of Issues by Category

Alternative content

LC(second)#321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#380: Checkpoint 2.3: What if equivalency relationship unknowable by format? (Resolved)

LC(second)#451: Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just null alt (Resolved)

Definition

LC(second)#322: The definition of the word element (Resolved)

LC(second)#359: Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#383: Checkpoint 3.2: Add definition of "placeholder" (Resolved)

Assistive technology compatibility

LC(second)#323: Using accessibility APIs rather than standard APIs to make non-W3C based content accessible (Resolved)

LC(second)#325: Checkpoint 5.5: API notification of content change in one viewport that causes change in another (Resolved)

LC(second)#367: Checkpoint 1.2: Clarification required for cross-platform implementations, published APIs, more (Resolved)

LC(second)#372: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality? (Resolved)

LC(second)#375: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality? (Resolved)

LC(second)#376: Requirement that plug-ins be given focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#379: Checkpoint 1.2: Exception when primary output (e.g., graphics) cannot be handled by the OS? (Resolved)

LC(second)#390: Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing approach (Resolved)

LC(second)#431: New requirement: conforming UA must make available preferences through API (Resolved)

LC(second)#457: Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required: standard APIs only? (Resolved)

Conformance

LC(second)#324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#344: Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type (Resolved)

LC(second)#349: New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently informative in 6.2) (Resolved)

LC(second)#351: Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG definitions (Resolved)

LC(second)#353: Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement. (Resolved)

LC(second)#355: Conformance: OS features used must be accessible (Resolved)

LC(second)#357: Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content properties (Resolved)

LC(second)#389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion (Resolved)

LC(second)#393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other programmatic means. (Resolved)

LC(second)#407: Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic closing of viewports (Resolved)

LC(second)#442: Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click behavior? (Resolved)

LC(second)#447: Conformance: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements (Resolved)

LC(second)#464: Applicability clause needs review since "role" not always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL) (Resolved)

LC(second)#465: Checkpoints 1.1/1.2: Keyboard AND Mouse AND Voice confusing since conformance section follows the checkpoints; the text feels contradictory. (Resolved)

Keyboard

LC(second)#326: Checkpoint 1.2: What if the standard APIs do the wrong thing? (Resolved)

LC(second)#337: Conformance: Implementing the standard API for the keyboard "after IME" (Resolved)

LC(second)#468: 11.3 (single-key binding): "At least a majority" minimal requirement needs review (Resolved)

Internationalization

LC(second)#327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API? (Resolved)

LC(second)#328: Checkpoint 4.12: "Words" per minute bounds do not scale internationally. (Resolved)

LC(second)#331: Add a requirement for configurability based on natural language preferences? (Resolved)

LC(second)#333: Checkpoint 4.2: Clarification required about what "all text" means (Resolved)

LC(second)#335: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to consider international input methods in single-key requirement (Resolved)

Natural language

LC(second)#329: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification required about boundaries of "recognized but unsupported" (Resolved)

LC(second)#330: Definition: Natural language / Writing system / Script (Resolved)

LC(second)#332: Repair requirement for when author has not specified natural language of content? (Resolved)

LC(second)#362: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarifications required (e.g., is this an accessibility issue?) (Resolved)

User Interface Accessibility

LC(second)#334: Checkpoint 7.5: Input to search capability not always "plain text" (may be speech, braille) (Resolved)

LC(second)#404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big performance hit, reflow. (Resolved)

LC(second)#408: Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not force manual open. (Resolved)

LC(second)#409: Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result? (Resolved)

LC(second)#410: Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20? (Resolved)

LC(second)#411: Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface with overlapping viewports (Resolved)

LC(second)#419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#459: What are UA responsibilities when content "takes over" UI controls? (Resolved)

OS Conventions

LC(second)#336: Checkpoint 9.2: Delete "accessibility" from "OS accessibility conventions"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#412: Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and second sentences. (Resolved)

LC(second)#456: Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not mean system APIs (Resolved)

Editorial

LC(second)#338: Editorial: Edits to Guideline 1 prose re: easy access (Resolved)

LC(second)#340: Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for informative cross-refs. (Resolved)

LC(second)#341: Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording (Resolved)

LC(second)#342: Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording (Resolved)

LC(second)#343: Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia checkpoints v. continuous-time (Resolved)

LC(second)#354: Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard / viewport (Resolved)

LC(second)#356: Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations" (Resolved)

LC(second)#366: Editorial: Please put direct links to WAI resources. (Resolved)

LC(second)#378: Simplify language of document for non-technical audience. (Resolved)

LC(second)#381: Checkpoint 2.5: Checkpoint text needs clarification (Resolved)

LC(second)#386: Checkpoint 5.4: Move example to Note (Resolved)

LC(second)#421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required. (Resolved)

LC(second)#422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active element/focus + techniques (Resolved)

LC(second)#425: Checkoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4 (Resolved)

LC(second)#432: Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#436: Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples (Resolved)

LC(second)#455: Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of presentation"? (Resolved)

DOM

LC(second)#339: DOM Level 2 requirement for HTML since returned to Working Draft (Resolved)

LC(second)#437: Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? (Resolved)

Device Independence

LC(second)#345: Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable? (Resolved)

LC(second)#391: Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to reimplement input methods. (Resolved)

Multimedia

LC(second)#346: Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3, leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#347: Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable? What is definition? (Resolved)

LC(second)#360: Checkpoint 2.2: What if time interval controlled by server? What about security issues? (Resolved)

User-control of Style

LC(second)#348: Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard (state v. interaction) (Resolved)

LC(second)#363: Checkpoint 3.3: What if scripts used for blinking? (also, other issues) (Resolved)

LC(second)#371: Checkpoint 3.8: Priority should be raised from P2 to P1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used). (Resolved)

LC(second)#395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional (Resolved)

LC(second)#396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values (Resolved)

LC(second)#397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to define "system colors" (Resolved)

LC(second)#398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not recognized as style" (Resolved)

LC(second)#399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this? (Resolved)

LC(second)#400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to play simultanously? (Resolved)

LC(second)#405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish selection/focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images (Resolved)

LC(second)#434: Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to override author-specified volumes (Resolved)

LC(second)#454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1? (Resolved)

Navigation

LC(second)#350: Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4? (Resolved)

LC(second)#369: Checkpoint 7.4: Conformance possible if you can't get to elements with event handlers? (Resolved)

LC(second)#370: Checkpoint 7.6: Clarification required on how important elements identified (Resolved)

LC(second)#414: Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements (Resolved)

LC(second)#415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4) (Resolved)

LC(second)#438: Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of active elements sufficient? (Resolved)

LC(second)#439: Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation (Resolved)

LC(second)#440: Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques? (Resolved)

Other

LC(second)#352: Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable? (Resolved)

LC(second)#358: Definition: Equivalent (Resolved)

LC(second)#384: Editorial Checkpoint 3.3: Add an example of stock quote ticker (Resolved)

LC(second)#385: Add requirement that component size increases when objects contained increase size? (Resolved)

LC(second)#392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad (Resolved)

LC(second)#416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard? (Resolved)

LC(second)#443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) specific events (Resolved)

LC(second)#444: Guideline 1 rationale needs clarification (Resolved)

LC(second)#445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions? (Resolved)

LC(second)#446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG) (Resolved)

LC(second)#450: If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions should it follow? (Resolved)

LC(second)#452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?) (Resolved)

Speech

LC(second)#361: Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long / consider ease-of-use (Resolved)

LC(second)#365: Checkpoint 4.12: Re-evaluate priority of increase/decrease and allow other techniques (also, other issues) (Resolved)

LC(second)#374: Definition: Selection, current selection and use of inflected speech. (Resolved)

LC(second)#401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a separate (Resolved)

LC(second)#402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for one wpm case) (Resolved)

LC(second)#403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of author-specified speeds. (Resolved)

LC(second)#435: Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well? (Resolved)

Scripting events

LC(second)#364: Checkpoint 3.5: Add plug-ins, clarify that on a resource-level (not element-level) (Resolved)

LC(second)#453: Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects" (Resolved)

LC(second)#466: What are the priority of the accessibility issues and user agent minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.3 (Resolved)

Documentation

LC(second)#368: Checkpoint 10.1: Use relative priority (Resolved)

LC(second)#373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format (Resolved)

LC(second)#428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4) (Resolved)

LC(second)#429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying preferences. (Resolved)

Security

LC(second)#377: Security issues and communication with other software (Resolved)

Orientation

LC(second)#387: Checkpoint 8.4: Where do labels come from? XML/HTML? (Resolved)

LC(second)#406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from beginning without alert (Resolved)

LC(second)#418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text. (Resolved)

LC(second)#420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for confirmation when activating a fee link (Resolved)

LC(second)#433: Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is "instantaneous"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#441: New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the resource being at the same or a different domain. (Resolved)

LC(second)#458: Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an image map? What is required granularity? (Resolved)

LC(second)#461: Orientation to the actions available on the element with focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#467: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: User needs to be able to toggle off as well as on (e.g., for a user with a cognitive disability). (Resolved)

Configuration

LC(second)#388: Checkpoint 9.7: Raise priority to P1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf information presented. (Resolved)

LC(second)#424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input? (Resolved)

LC(second)#426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this checkpoint (Resolved)

Views

LC(second)#394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view (Resolved)

Scope of Guidelines

LC(second)#413: Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content? (Resolved)

Supporting materials

LC(second)#449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0 (Resolved)

Timing

LC(second)#460: Checkpoint 2.2 (timed input): Examples of "required user input"? (Resolved)

Automatic changes in content

LC(second)#462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and redirection (3.6) (Resolved)

References

LC(second)#463: Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other specifications (Resolved)

Index of Issues by Name of Person Raising the Issue

Al Gilman

LC(second)#321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#340: Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for informative cross-refs. (Resolved)

LC(second)#341: Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording (Resolved)

LC(second)#342: Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording (Resolved)

LC(second)#343: Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia checkpoints v. continuous-time (Resolved)

LC(second)#344: Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type (Resolved)

LC(second)#345: Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable? (Resolved)

LC(second)#346: Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3, leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#347: Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable? What is definition? (Resolved)

LC(second)#348: Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard (state v. interaction) (Resolved)

LC(second)#349: New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently informative in 6.2) (Resolved)

LC(second)#350: Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4? (Resolved)

LC(second)#351: Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG definitions (Resolved)

LC(second)#352: Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable? (Resolved)

LC(second)#353: Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement. (Resolved)

LC(second)#354: Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard / viewport (Resolved)

LC(second)#355: Conformance: OS features used must be accessible (Resolved)

LC(second)#356: Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations" (Resolved)

LC(second)#357: Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content properties (Resolved)

LC(second)#358: Definition: Equivalent (Resolved)

LC(second)#359: Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and redirection (3.6) (Resolved)

LC(second)#468: 11.3 (single-key binding): "At least a majority" minimal requirement needs review (Resolved)

Eric Hansen

LC(second)#322: The definition of the word element (Resolved)

Adobe

LC(second)#323: Using accessibility APIs rather than standard APIs to make non-W3C based content accessible (Resolved)

LC(second)#324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2 (Resolved)

T.V. Raman

LC(second)#325: Checkpoint 5.5: API notification of content change in one viewport that causes change in another (Resolved)

Karl Dubost

LC(second)#326: Checkpoint 1.2: What if the standard APIs do the wrong thing? (Resolved)

Martin Duerst

LC(second)#327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API? (Resolved)

LC(second)#328: Checkpoint 4.12: "Words" per minute bounds do not scale internationally. (Resolved)

LC(second)#329: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification required about boundaries of "recognized but unsupported" (Resolved)

LC(second)#330: Definition: Natural language / Writing system / Script (Resolved)

LC(second)#331: Add a requirement for configurability based on natural language preferences? (Resolved)

LC(second)#332: Repair requirement for when author has not specified natural language of content? (Resolved)

LC(second)#333: Checkpoint 4.2: Clarification required about what "all text" means (Resolved)

LC(second)#334: Checkpoint 7.5: Input to search capability not always "plain text" (may be speech, braille) (Resolved)

LC(second)#335: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to consider international input methods in single-key requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#336: Checkpoint 9.2: Delete "accessibility" from "OS accessibility conventions"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#337: Conformance: Implementing the standard API for the keyboard "after IME" (Resolved)

Bryan Campbell

LC(second)#338: Editorial: Edits to Guideline 1 prose re: easy access (Resolved)

Ian Jacobs

LC(second)#339: DOM Level 2 requirement for HTML since returned to Working Draft (Resolved)

LC(second)#458: Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an image map? What is required granularity? (Resolved)

LC(second)#459: What are UA responsibilities when content "takes over" UI controls? (Resolved)

LC(second)#460: Checkpoint 2.2 (timed input): Examples of "required user input"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#461: Orientation to the actions available on the element with focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#463: Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other specifications (Resolved)

LC(second)#464: Applicability clause needs review since "role" not always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL) (Resolved)

Phill Jenkins

LC(second)#360: Checkpoint 2.2: What if time interval controlled by server? What about security issues? (Resolved)

LC(second)#361: Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long / consider ease-of-use (Resolved)

LC(second)#362: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarifications required (e.g., is this an accessibility issue?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#363: Checkpoint 3.3: What if scripts used for blinking? (also, other issues) (Resolved)

LC(second)#364: Checkpoint 3.5: Add plug-ins, clarify that on a resource-level (not element-level) (Resolved)

LC(second)#365: Checkpoint 4.12: Re-evaluate priority of increase/decrease and allow other techniques (also, other issues) (Resolved)

LC(second)#366: Editorial: Please put direct links to WAI resources. (Resolved)

LC(second)#367: Checkpoint 1.2: Clarification required for cross-platform implementations, published APIs, more (Resolved)

LC(second)#368: Checkpoint 10.1: Use relative priority (Resolved)

LC(second)#369: Checkpoint 7.4: Conformance possible if you can't get to elements with event handlers? (Resolved)

LC(second)#370: Checkpoint 7.6: Clarification required on how important elements identified (Resolved)

Richard Premack

LC(second)#371: Checkpoint 3.8: Priority should be raised from P2 to P1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#374: Definition: Selection, current selection and use of inflected speech. (Resolved)

Dianna Callesen

LC(second)#372: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality? (Resolved)

LC(second)#375: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality? (Resolved)

LC(second)#376: Requirement that plug-ins be given focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#377: Security issues and communication with other software (Resolved)

LC(second)#378: Simplify language of document for non-technical audience. (Resolved)

LC(second)#379: Checkpoint 1.2: Exception when primary output (e.g., graphics) cannot be handled by the OS? (Resolved)

LC(second)#380: Checkpoint 2.3: What if equivalency relationship unknowable by format? (Resolved)

LC(second)#381: Checkpoint 2.5: Checkpoint text needs clarification (Resolved)

LC(second)#382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used). (Resolved)

Earl Johnson

LC(second)#383: Checkpoint 3.2: Add definition of "placeholder" (Resolved)

LC(second)#384: Editorial Checkpoint 3.3: Add an example of stock quote ticker (Resolved)

LC(second)#385: Add requirement that component size increases when objects contained increase size? (Resolved)

LC(second)#386: Checkpoint 5.4: Move example to Note (Resolved)

LC(second)#387: Checkpoint 8.4: Where do labels come from? XML/HTML? (Resolved)

LC(second)#388: Checkpoint 9.7: Raise priority to P1 (Resolved)

Greg Lowney

LC(second)#389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion (Resolved)

LC(second)#390: Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing approach (Resolved)

LC(second)#391: Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to reimplement input methods. (Resolved)

LC(second)#392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad (Resolved)

LC(second)#393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other programmatic means. (Resolved)

LC(second)#394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view (Resolved)

LC(second)#395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional (Resolved)

LC(second)#396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values (Resolved)

LC(second)#397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to define "system colors" (Resolved)

LC(second)#398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not recognized as style" (Resolved)

LC(second)#399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this? (Resolved)

LC(second)#400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to play simultanously? (Resolved)

LC(second)#401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a separate (Resolved)

LC(second)#402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for one wpm case) (Resolved)

LC(second)#403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of author-specified speeds. (Resolved)

LC(second)#404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big performance hit, reflow. (Resolved)

LC(second)#405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish selection/focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#407: Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic closing of viewports (Resolved)

LC(second)#408: Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not force manual open. (Resolved)

LC(second)#409: Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result? (Resolved)

LC(second)#410: Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20? (Resolved)

LC(second)#411: Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface with overlapping viewports (Resolved)

LC(second)#412: Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and second sentences. (Resolved)

LC(second)#413: Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content? (Resolved)

LC(second)#414: Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements (Resolved)

LC(second)#415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4) (Resolved)

LC(second)#416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard? (Resolved)

LC(second)#417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from beginning without alert (Resolved)

LC(second)#418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text. (Resolved)

LC(second)#419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for confirmation when activating a fee link (Resolved)

LC(second)#421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required. (Resolved)

LC(second)#422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active element/focus + techniques (Resolved)

LC(second)#423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf information presented. (Resolved)

LC(second)#424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input? (Resolved)

LC(second)#425: Checkoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4 (Resolved)

LC(second)#426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this checkpoint (Resolved)

LC(second)#427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format (Resolved)

LC(second)#428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4) (Resolved)

LC(second)#429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying preferences. (Resolved)

LC(second)#430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images (Resolved)

LC(second)#431: New requirement: conforming UA must make available preferences through API (Resolved)

LC(second)#432: Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#433: Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is "instantaneous"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#434: Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to override author-specified volumes (Resolved)

LC(second)#435: Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well? (Resolved)

LC(second)#436: Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples (Resolved)

LC(second)#437: Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#438: Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of active elements sufficient? (Resolved)

LC(second)#439: Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation (Resolved)

LC(second)#440: Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques? (Resolved)

LC(second)#441: New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the resource being at the same or a different domain. (Resolved)

LC(second)#442: Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click behavior? (Resolved)

Constantine Stephanidis

LC(second)#443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) specific events (Resolved)

LC(second)#444: Guideline 1 rationale needs clarification (Resolved)

LC(second)#445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions? (Resolved)

LC(second)#446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG) (Resolved)

HTML WG

LC(second)#447: Conformance: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements (Resolved)

LC(second)#448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? (Resolved)

WCAG

LC(second)#449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0 (Resolved)

LC(second)#450: If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions should it follow? (Resolved)

LC(second)#451: Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just null alt (Resolved)

LC(second)#452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#453: Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects" (Resolved)

LC(second)#454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1? (Resolved)

LC(second)#455: Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of presentation"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#456: Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not mean system APIs (Resolved)

LC(second)#457: Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required: standard APIs only? (Resolved)

Aaron Leventhal

LC(second)#465: Checkpoints 1.1/1.2: Keyboard AND Mouse AND Voice confusing since conformance section follows the checkpoints; the text feels contradictory. (Resolved)

Aaron Leventhal and Jon Gunderson

LC(second)#466: What are the priority of the accessibility issues and user agent minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.3 (Resolved)

Denis Anson

LC(second)#467: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: User needs to be able to toggle off as well as on (e.g., for a user with a cognitive disability). (Resolved)

Index of Issues by Type

Definitions

LC(second)#321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#322: The definition of the word element (Resolved)

LC(second)#330: Definition: Natural language / Writing system / Script (Resolved)

LC(second)#359: Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#365: Checkpoint 4.12: Re-evaluate priority of increase/decrease and allow other techniques (also, other issues) (Resolved)

LC(second)#369: Checkpoint 7.4: Conformance possible if you can't get to elements with event handlers? (Resolved)

LC(second)#370: Checkpoint 7.6: Clarification required on how important elements identified (Resolved)

LC(second)#393: Checkpoint 1.2: Change to P2 for exposing through other programmatic means. (Resolved)

LC(second)#398: Checkpoint 4.5 (4.6, 4.8, 4.9): Need definition of "not recognized as style" (Resolved)

LC(second)#404: Checkpoint 4.16 (4.17, 8.2): Font requirement implies big performance hit, reflow. (Resolved)

LC(second)#405: Checkpoint 4.17: Need stronger requirement to distinguish selection/focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#408: Checkpoint 4.20: Allow configuration to prompt to open, not force manual open. (Resolved)

LC(second)#412: Checkpoint 5.8: Editorial association between first and second sentences. (Resolved)

LC(second)#413: Checkpoint 6.2: Does this only apply to content? (Resolved)

LC(second)#415: Definition of active element: too broad (checkpoint 7.4) (Resolved)

LC(second)#417: Checkpoint 7.5: Add to min reqs to not start searching from beginning without alert (Resolved)

LC(second)#433: Checkpoint 3.6: Is control required when redirection is "instantaneous"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#435: Checkpoint 4.14: Is this for content only or UI as well? (Resolved)

LC(second)#437: Checkpoint 5.7: Increase priority from P3 to P2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#440: Checkpoint 7.5: Should min reqs be moved to techniques? (Resolved)

LC(second)#442: Checkpoint 9.4: Does this include default mouse click behavior? (Resolved)

LC(second)#457: Checkpoint 5.4: Ambiguity about what exactly required: standard APIs only? (Resolved)

LC(second)#460: Checkpoint 2.2 (timed input): Examples of "required user input"? (Resolved)

Checkpoints

LC(second)#323: Using accessibility APIs rather than standard APIs to make non-W3C based content accessible (Resolved)

LC(second)#324: How do developers interpret the phrase "appropriate for a task" in checkpoint 6.2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#325: Checkpoint 5.5: API notification of content change in one viewport that causes change in another (Resolved)

LC(second)#326: Checkpoint 1.2: What if the standard APIs do the wrong thing? (Resolved)

LC(second)#328: Checkpoint 4.12: "Words" per minute bounds do not scale internationally. (Resolved)

LC(second)#329: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification required about boundaries of "recognized but unsupported" (Resolved)

LC(second)#333: Checkpoint 4.2: Clarification required about what "all text" means (Resolved)

LC(second)#336: Checkpoint 9.2: Delete "accessibility" from "OS accessibility conventions"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#339: DOM Level 2 requirement for HTML since returned to Working Draft (Resolved)

LC(second)#343: Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia checkpoints v. continuous-time (Resolved)

LC(second)#346: Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3, leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#347: Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable? What is definition? (Resolved)

LC(second)#350: Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4? (Resolved)

LC(second)#354: Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard / viewport (Resolved)

LC(second)#356: Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations" (Resolved)

LC(second)#357: Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content properties (Resolved)

LC(second)#362: Checkpoint 2.7: Clarifications required (e.g., is this an accessibility issue?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#363: Checkpoint 3.3: What if scripts used for blinking? (also, other issues) (Resolved)

LC(second)#371: Checkpoint 3.8: Priority should be raised from P2 to P1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#388: Checkpoint 9.7: Raise priority to P1 (Resolved)

LC(second)#403: Checkpoint 4.12: Need to require override of author-specified speeds. (Resolved)

LC(second)#414: Checkpoint 7.3: Need stronger min requirements (Resolved)

LC(second)#418: Checkpoint 7.5: Search should include alt text. (Resolved)

LC(second)#420: Checkpoint 8.3: Add config requirement to prompt for confirmation when activating a fee link (Resolved)

LC(second)#421: Checkpoint 8.6: Clarification about intent required. (Resolved)

LC(second)#422: Checkpoint 8.8: Clarification of usage of terms active element/focus + techniques (Resolved)

LC(second)#423: Checkpoint 9.3: Need min requirement for how/where conf information presented. (Resolved)

LC(second)#424: Checkpoint 9.3: Do author-specified shortcuts include active elements that take mouse input? (Resolved)

LC(second)#425: Checkoint 9.5: Need to emphasize more why different from 9.4 (Resolved)

LC(second)#426: Checkpoint 9.8: Clarify that brief sequences satisfy this checkpoint (Resolved)

LC(second)#428: Checkpoint 10.5: Add requirement that changes that affect accessibility be part of dedicated documentation (10.4) (Resolved)

LC(second)#429: New requirement: documentation of API for querying preferences. (Resolved)

LC(second)#430: Checkpoint 3.2: Animations, not just animated images (Resolved)

LC(second)#431: New requirement: conforming UA must make available preferences through API (Resolved)

LC(second)#432: Checkpoint 3.4: Overlaps with 3.2 (Resolved)

LC(second)#434: Checkpoint 4.13: Clarify that the user must be able to override author-specified volumes (Resolved)

LC(second)#436: Checkpoint 5.3: Please provide examples (Resolved)

LC(second)#438: Checkpoint 7.3: For some devices, is direct navigation of active elements sufficient? (Resolved)

LC(second)#439: Checkpoint 7.3: Add technique of directional navigation (Resolved)

LC(second)#441: New requirement (part of 8.5): Add information about the resource being at the same or a different domain. (Resolved)

LC(second)#448: Checkpoint 5.7: Is CSS read-only or read/write? (Resolved)

LC(second)#451: Checkpoint 2.6: Generalize to decorative content, not just null alt (Resolved)

LC(second)#453: Checkpoint 3.5: Generalize to "programmatic objects" (Resolved)

LC(second)#454: Checkpoints 3.6/3.7: Should these be Priority 1? (Resolved)

LC(second)#456: Editorial: Need to clarify in section 3.2 that we do not mean system APIs (Resolved)

LC(second)#458: Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an image map? What is required granularity? (Resolved)

LC(second)#461: Orientation to the actions available on the element with focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and redirection (3.6) (Resolved)

LC(second)#466: What are the priority of the accessibility issues and user agent minimum requirements for checkpoint 9.3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#467: Checkpoints 3.2/3.7: User needs to be able to toggle off as well as on (e.g., for a user with a cognitive disability). (Resolved)

No type

LC(second)#327: Add requirement for support of charset expected of each API? (Resolved)

LC(second)#332: Repair requirement for when author has not specified natural language of content? (Resolved)

LC(second)#334: Checkpoint 7.5: Input to search capability not always "plain text" (may be speech, braille) (Resolved)

LC(second)#335: Checkpoint 9.5: Need to consider international input methods in single-key requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#337: Conformance: Implementing the standard API for the keyboard "after IME" (Resolved)

LC(second)#338: Editorial: Edits to Guideline 1 prose re: easy access (Resolved)

LC(second)#340: Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for informative cross-refs. (Resolved)

LC(second)#341: Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording (Resolved)

LC(second)#342: Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording (Resolved)

LC(second)#344: Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type (Resolved)

LC(second)#345: Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable? (Resolved)

LC(second)#348: Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard (state v. interaction) (Resolved)

LC(second)#349: New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently informative in 6.2) (Resolved)

LC(second)#351: Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG definitions (Resolved)

LC(second)#352: Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable? (Resolved)

LC(second)#353: Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement. (Resolved)

LC(second)#355: Conformance: OS features used must be accessible (Resolved)

LC(second)#358: Definition: Equivalent (Resolved)

LC(second)#360: Checkpoint 2.2: What if time interval controlled by server? What about security issues? (Resolved)

LC(second)#361: Checkpoint 4.14: List of options is too long / consider ease-of-use (Resolved)

LC(second)#364: Checkpoint 3.5: Add plug-ins, clarify that on a resource-level (not element-level) (Resolved)

LC(second)#366: Editorial: Please put direct links to WAI resources. (Resolved)

LC(second)#367: Checkpoint 1.2: Clarification required for cross-platform implementations, published APIs, more (Resolved)

LC(second)#368: Checkpoint 10.1: Use relative priority (Resolved)

LC(second)#372: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality? (Resolved)

LC(second)#374: Definition: Selection, current selection and use of inflected speech. (Resolved)

LC(second)#375: Limitations of standard APIs in conveying author's intent or functionality? (Resolved)

LC(second)#376: Requirement that plug-ins be given focus (Resolved)

LC(second)#377: Security issues and communication with other software (Resolved)

LC(second)#378: Simplify language of document for non-technical audience. (Resolved)

LC(second)#379: Checkpoint 1.2: Exception when primary output (e.g., graphics) cannot be handled by the OS? (Resolved)

LC(second)#380: Checkpoint 2.3: What if equivalency relationship unknowable by format? (Resolved)

LC(second)#381: Checkpoint 2.5: Checkpoint text needs clarification (Resolved)

LC(second)#382: Checkpoint 3.2: Hard to do in many cases (e.g., when scripts used). (Resolved)

LC(second)#383: Checkpoint 3.2: Add definition of "placeholder" (Resolved)

LC(second)#384: Editorial Checkpoint 3.3: Add an example of stock quote ticker (Resolved)

LC(second)#385: Add requirement that component size increases when objects contained increase size? (Resolved)

LC(second)#386: Checkpoint 5.4: Move example to Note (Resolved)

LC(second)#387: Checkpoint 8.4: Where do labels come from? XML/HTML? (Resolved)

LC(second)#389: Conformance: Hard to test conformance in an objective fashion (Resolved)

LC(second)#390: Checkpoint 1.1: Overly broad, disagree with all-or-nothing approach (Resolved)

LC(second)#391: Checkpoint 1.1: Need clarification about no requirement to reimplement input methods. (Resolved)

LC(second)#392: Checkpoint 1.4: Overly broad (Resolved)

LC(second)#394: Checkpoint 2.1: Vague about what cannot be provided through a source view (Resolved)

LC(second)#395: Checkpoint 3.8: Make images optional (Resolved)

LC(second)#396: New requirement: Allow user to override absolute values (Resolved)

LC(second)#397: Checkpoint 4.3 (and other color checkpoints): Need to define "system colors" (Resolved)

LC(second)#399: Checkpoint 4.7: Implementation experience for this? (Resolved)

LC(second)#400: Checkpoint 4.11: Why limited to sources synchronized to play simultanously? (Resolved)

LC(second)#401: Checkpoint 4.12: Split checkpoint with minreqs in a separate (Resolved)

LC(second)#402: Checkpoint 4.12: Problem with incremental change (e.g., for one wpm case) (Resolved)

LC(second)#406: Checkpoint 4.18: Lower to Priority 3 (Resolved)

LC(second)#407: Checkpoint 4.20: Include requirement to control automatic closing of viewports (Resolved)

LC(second)#409: Checkpoint 4.20: If frames are not opened, what is result? (Resolved)

LC(second)#410: Checkpoint 4.21: Is this redundant to 4.20? (Resolved)

LC(second)#411: Checkpoint 4.21: Not just for GUIs but for any interface with overlapping viewports (Resolved)

LC(second)#416: Add requirement: To select text with the keyboard? (Resolved)

LC(second)#419: Checkpoint 8.3: Recommend removing font as minimal requirement (Resolved)

LC(second)#427: Checkpoint 10.1: HTML is not only accessible format (Resolved)

LC(second)#443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse) specific events (Resolved)

LC(second)#444: Guideline 1 rationale needs clarification (Resolved)

LC(second)#445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard at all, but provide accessibility solutions? (Resolved)

LC(second)#446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable (variable priority linked to WCAG) (Resolved)

LC(second)#447: Conformance: Conformance by default w.r.t. configuration requirements (Resolved)

LC(second)#449: Create an executive summary for UAAG 1.0 (Resolved)

LC(second)#450: If UA is implemented in Java, what system conventions should it follow? (Resolved)

LC(second)#452: Checkpoint 2.2: Review minimal requirement (three options?) (Resolved)

LC(second)#464: Applicability clause needs review since "role" not always known from format (e.g., captions in SMIL) (Resolved)

LC(second)#465: Checkpoints 1.1/1.2: Keyboard AND Mouse AND Voice confusing since conformance section follows the checkpoints; the text feels contradictory. (Resolved)

LC(second)#468: 11.3 (single-key binding): "At least a majority" minimal requirement needs review (Resolved)

Issue

LC(second)#331: Add a requirement for configurability based on natural language preferences? (Resolved)

Guidelines

LC(second)#455: Guideline 4: Change to "Ensure user control of presentation"? (Resolved)

LC(second)#459: What are UA responsibilities when content "takes over" UI controls? (Resolved)

LC(second)#463: Create section on how to refer to UAAG from other specifications (Resolved)