Snapshot of UAAG 1.0 Third Last Call issues list

Status of this document

This document is a snapshot of the 50 issues resolved by the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group as part of the third last call review of the 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0.

Previous issues lists:

This document last modified: $Date: 2001/08/30 16:29:31 $ by $Author: ijacobs $

List of 50 issues


Issue details listed in numerical order

Issue 518 (Working Draft): Conformance icons: Remove them or make them about unverified claims.
Name: SVG WG
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0199
Date: Thu Jun 21 20:40:50 2001
Category of issue: Conformance
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary: Conformance icons are about unverified claims, per the reviewer's suggestion and consistent with the WG's expectations.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0002
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
The SVG group's overall opinion is that conformance icons only make sense in two main scenarios: (1) The icon only means that claims have been made. Instead of loose language about the need for retraction if "it may be demonstrated", just say that it is expected that UA developers would retract the icon if they can no longer make conformance claims (2) The icon actually means some real verification has occurred. In the general case, there are two viable ways to verify conformance claims: (a) when there is an automated tool to verify conformance (e.g., the HTML validator) or (b) there is a certifying organization in place. In the case of UAAG, (2a) is impossible because the UAAG covers an application (which has an infinite number of operating scenarios, usually dependencies on particular configurations and infinite numbers of potential inputs) and not a file format and (2b) will not happen before UAAG become a Recommendation. Therefore, the SVG group recommends either that the whole notion of UAAG icons get dropped or that scenario (1) is used. We want to point out that (1) seems more useful in a WCAG scenario than a UAAG scenario. With WCAG, a site could put a WCAG icon on their home page where it can be seen by all. In the case of user agents, sometimes the agent needs to render content unobtrusively, such as a browser plugin which is supposed to render some content potentially without the user being aware that the plugin was invoked, in which case there may not be a place for the icon to appear. If (1) is pursued, we suggest that the UAAG say that the icons SHOULD be hyperlinked to the claims.
Key References: none
Issue 517 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 4.4: Does this make sense for nested (SMIL Animation) time containers?
Name: SVG WG
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0199
Date: Thu Jun 21 11:49:53 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary: - Define "an animation" to be content that produces a visual effect and is independently playable animation. (And recognized as such.)
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0112.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

This checkpoint talks about controlling particular animations on an individual basis. This is not practical with SMIL and SVG as this goes against the basic data models inherent in the languages. In SMIL and SVG (and QuickTime), there are time containers which are masters over time-based content such as individual animations. The time container is the master that drives the animation as a slave. The animation just responds to commands such as "update yourself to what you should look like X.Y seconds into the animation". The only thing that is reasonable is to allow the ability to pause, accelerate or decelerate the time containers. However, if you have nested time containers, things can still get very complicated as the nested time containers themselves are just slaves to their parent time containers. Selecting these nested time containers would require extensive user interface work on the part of UA developers which would represent large amounts of work just to support this checkpoint.

Refer to proposal based on discussion with SVG representatives on 28 June: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0010.html

Key References: none
Issue 516 (Working Draft): 2.4: Checkpoint doesn't make sense for SMIL 2.0
Name: SVG WG
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0199
Date: Wed Jun 20 18:19:29 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0151.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

This checkpoint is unimplementable as written for language built on the SMIL2 timing model. There is no way for a UA to be able to tell whether user input is restricted to a finite time interval. In fact, it is not possible to know whether user input is happening at all in many cases. SVG in particular responds to low-level user events such as keypresses and pointer device actions. It cannot distinguish keypresses which operate a game console versus keypresses which are entries into a simulated "form". In a general sense, the same is true for any language that supports interactivity and animation. There is no way that a UA can make up for content that isn't structured to allow pausing. This checkpoint should be removed from UAAG. This is a WCAG item only. The only possible feature that a UA might be able to provide in this area is the ability to pause the "root timeline" via keyboard action or to accelerate/decelerate the root timeline, where the root timeline is the clock maintained by the root time container element which starts at "document begin". In SMIL, this would be the <smil> element. In a stand-alone SVG document, this would be the outermost <svg> element. (There is no feasible way to pause any of the subordinate timelines.)

Refer to discussion at 28 June teleconf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0002

See comments from Al Gilman summarizing some issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0103.html

Key References: none
Issue 515 (Working Draft): API requirements for communication between User Agents and Assistive Technologies
Name: Jon Gunderson
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0230.html
Date: Thu May 31 16:16:43 2001
Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary: Editorial change to note based on Ian's e-mail.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0243.html
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0251.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Key References: none
Issue 514 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 1.1: If UA functionalities are keyboard operable, must all UI controls be?
Name: Jonny Axelson / Opera
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0045.html
Date: Thu May 24 12:31:17 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
-Change 1.1 to state that the user must be able to operate with the keyboard any functionality that is available through the user interface (in some configuration).
- Typically, this will involve keyboard operation of user interface controls in addition to direct keyboard operation of functionalities.
- Direct keyboard operation alone may cause problems due to the cognitive load of memorizing shortcuts. See Guideline 11 for configuration requirements.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0224.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

Proposal: - Harmonize this with checkpoint in G6 that says "provide api access to controls. if that not possible, then allow programmatic interaction with functionalities available through the UI.

Key References: none
Issue 513 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 2.9: What if automatic rendering unspecified or contradicts specification?
Name: Steven Pemberton / HTML
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0180.html
Date: Mon May 21 12:33:22 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- No change.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0224.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 512 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Thu May 17 15:22:55 2001
Category of issue: Configuration
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JulSep/0112.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Ask I18N and Chris Lilley about how to express a lower bound on avg character dimensions in terms of readability and use terminology as part of minimum requirement for checkpoint 4.1
Key References: none
Issue 511 (Working Draft): What is definition of applet?
Name: Sun
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0147
Date: Mon May 14 14:50:59 2001
Category of issue: Definition
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

- Accept definitions of applet in plug-in in 25 May draft.

Resolution URL: Not resolved
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Refer to definition suggested by Earl: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/projects/t1glossary2000/_applet.html
Key References: none
Issue 510 (Working Draft): Conformance: How to observe OS conventions when building a cross-platform user agent?
Name: Real Networks
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
Date: Fri May 11 21:03:22 2001
Category of issue: Configuration
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

- No change: conventions are important at a P2 level.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2 Implementing or don't disrupt various OS accessibility conventions. - Once again, these get *extremely* difficult for those trying to build one codebase that functions across Win/Mac/and multiple Unix flavors. In designing a cross-platform application, a product may opt for consistency for ease of development and/or usability. X-plat may make some OS features unavailable, unattainable or tether a product to the OS manufacturer's demands/designs; not always a positive outcome.
Key References: none
Issue 509 (Working Draft): 6.1, 6.2: P1 to provide access to content (e.g., in raw form), DOM either P2 or alternative
Name: Real Networks
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
Date: Fri May 11 20:57:19 2001
Category of issue: DOM
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- No change to the document. Raw access to content is insufficient because of burden it places on ATs.
- Cost has not been a criterion for establishing user needs.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 508 (Working Draft): 4.5: Require clarification - is fast playback required, or just the ability to jump forward in time?
Name: Real Networks
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
Date: Fri May 11 20:50:24 2001
Category of issue: Multimedia
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

Resolved:
- Fast playback is not required.
- Fast playback should be implemented (technique).

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
IJ: It is my understanding that this checkpoint does *not* require the user agent to play the content faster than the at the specified rate. I do not believe that the fast forward functionality is required to do playback as well - only advance the viewport through the content to another point in time. Of course, faster playback is a more useful feature.
Key References: none
Issue 507 (Working Draft): 4.3: If no global background color, does checkpoint apply if user agent can do on a regional basis?
Name: Real Networks
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
Date: Fri May 11 20:48:50 2001
Category of issue: User-control of Style
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:

- Checkpoint 4.3 does apply to all regions (same for 4.2, 4.2). The format may not allow background to be set at a global level, but it doesn't matter to the user: the background color has to be "color X" everywhere.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 506 (Working Draft): 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different components control different content?
Name: Real Networks
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0115
Date: Fri May 11 19:32:29 2001
Category of issue: Configuration
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Adopt proposal (with editorial tweaks). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0221
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0224.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
RL: 4.2 Very difficult feature to support, since many datatypes in our system support text in different ways. We can see the benefit, but it would be good to ensure that a lower conformance level can be achieved that excludes this feature. IJ: This comment applies to any checkpoint that requires a single value. Need clarification that this can be broken down on a per-viewport basis (or something similar).

Proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0221.html

Key References: none
Issue 505 (Working Draft): 11.3: Propose that single-key mode would be sufficient technique
Name: Ian Jacobs / Opera
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0079
Date: Fri May 11 19:31:09 2001
Category of issue: Keyboard
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

Resolved:
- Single key mode would satisfy 11.4: You enter single key mode, and thereafter you have single key bindings.
- User should be able to enter/leave single key mode with a single key binding.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

I think that we should clarify that the user agent can satisfy this checkpoint by entering a "single-key mode"; I would hope that this mode can be activated by a single key.

This means that, for example, the required bindings might not be single-key by default, but very easily, the user agent could provide a single key mode and satisfy the pertinent requirements.

I don't believe that this is inconsistent with 11.4 today, because the single-key binding requirements are not default requirements.

Key References: none
Issue 504 (Working Draft): 7.2, 10.3, 10.7, 12.3: Default values and inheritance from operating environment
Name: Ian Jacobs / Opera
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0079
Date: Fri May 11 19:30:05 2001
Category of issue: OS Conventions
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

Resolved:
- When default values are inherited through the operating system settings, the user agent is not required to satisfy the default settings requirements.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

For checkpoints 7.2, 10.3, 10.7, if the user agent inherits default settings from the operating environment, and if the user can configure them at that level, then the user agent satisfies the checkpoint. For 10.3, the user agent doesn't have to ensure that the differ from one another if they are inherited (and configurable) at the operating environment level. The user agent documentation should explain to the user how to change the defaults at the operating environment level.

For checkpoint 12.3, if the user agent inherits the default input configuration from the operating environment, and if they are documented for the operating environment, then the user agent satisfies the checkpoint. The user agent documentation should explain where to find out information about the default bindings in the operating environment documentation.

Proposal from Ian: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0079.html

Key References: none
Issue 503 (Working Draft): 9.3: Clarification requested: does this mean that onfocus events are not triggered?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Opera
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0079
Date: Fri May 11 19:28:56 2001
Category of issue: Device Independence
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

Resolved:
- 1.2 is only about input device event handlers only.

Resolved: - 9.5
a) This is not about input device events.
b) This checkpoint should say that this is about any events related to the change of focus (either set or remove). This may include "onchange", but probably should not by specification.
c) Change brief description at beginning of checkpoint.

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0217.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
JA: Keyboard navigation by default doesn't activate elements that get the focus, subsequently hitting enter is necessary. For pointing devices a click is an element activation, but a mousedown or context menu activation is not. IJ: I think the UAWG needs to clarify that what is intended here is that moving focus to an enabled element does not even trigger an "onfocus" event.
Key References: none
Issue 502 (Working Draft): What constitutes blinking?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Opera
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0079
Date: Fri May 11 19:25:45 2001
Category of issue: User-control of Style
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Do not restrict requirement on blinking text to the range of 2 Hz to 55 Hz (as is done in section 508).
- Define blinking per CSS2. "Blinking text alternates between a visible and invisible state."
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0211.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
IJ: I think we will need to define what we mean by "blink". What rate of refresh constitutes blinking?
Key References: none
Issue 501 (Working Draft): 10.9: What is scope of position indicator?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:24:36 2001
Category of issue: Orientation
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0046.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

Imagine a presentation with 80 audio clips in a row (this could be done in SMIL with a <seq> element). Should the position indicator account for all 80? Or each one, one at a time? I wouldn't want the user agent to have to go out to the Web to get duration information about all 80 clips in advance in order to build a proportional position indicator. Instead, I think it would be reasonable to display in that case something like "First of 80 clips, 20% of first clip".

I think we should state explicitly that do *not* specify how such cases should be handled, only that the user have some indication of time elapse.

Key References: none
Issue 500 (Working Draft): 4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints, how does override work? Can captions be positioned in a separate viewport?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:22:41 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary: No change to checkpoint 4.6 on positioning captions
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0249.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0195.html

Key References: none
Issue 499 (Working Draft): 3.3: Relationship between streaming text and animated text
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:19:21 2001
Category of issue: Animations
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0046.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

Suppose you have a text stream that is animated across the bottom of the screen. How does the user agent render that as motionless text? Does it have to wait for the entire stream to render it all as motionless text? What if there's a lot of text content, does it have to render it all in one viewport?

Proposal: The UA does not have to (should not?) wait for the entire stream. It can render pieces of the stream as motionless text (e.g., as subtitles are usually rendered in movies).

Key References: none
Issue 498 (Working Draft): 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, 8.2: Conformance for some but not all formats
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:16:47 2001
Category of issue: Conformance
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0046.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

IJ: It is my understanding that our document allows conformance for a subset of all formats implemented by the user agent. For instance, the claimant might choose to claim conformance for HTML and PNG, but not for JPEG, even if it implements JPEG. Imagine a media player that implements 20 formats. A developer may not wish to claim conformance for all 20, and shouldn't be required to. IJ: I think that "for all" needs to be restricted to "for all that are part of the conformance claim". I think the same change needs to be made for checkpoint 2.2 ("For all text formats..."),

Refer to comments from Al: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0061.html

Key References: none
Issue 497 (Working Draft): 2.4: What is scope; what must the user agent pause?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:15:46 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0046.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

IJ: Imagine some content where two interactive streams are playing at the same time, but they are not explicitly synchronized with each other (the synchronization case is covered by 2.6). When the user agent pauses (per 2.4) to allow for user input related to the first stream, what should happen to the second stream? Should it be paused as well, or should it continue? When would the user agent recognize that two streams are synchronized or not (e.g., in SMIL would the <par> element suffice to indicate synchronization?) AG: in SMIL you always know the synchronization requirements across streams. So the SMIL player knows if you can pause one component independently or not. If the two media objects are referenced from the same SMIL file, the answer to this question is given by the SMIL markup and the semantics of that markup. <http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/smil-timing.html#adef-syncBehavior>http://www .w3.org/TR/smil20/smil-timing.html#adef-syncBehavior

Beyond that, it should be the smallest super-presentation (where the collection of all open windows in a windowing system is a super-presentation) for which there are sync constraints to require it. So the whole screen doesn't have to stop when you stop one thing, necessarily.

Key References: none
Issue 496 (Working Draft): 2.4: How useful in heavily interactive presentations?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:14:21 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary: No change, though we ack that for some presentations, this pause may not be optimal.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0046.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

In many situations, dynamic content may be accompanied by banner advertisements, for instance. Imagine a presentation where the top of the presentation is occupied by a series of eighty banner ads, one after the other, each lasting 30 seconds. It would seem that pausing the presentation every thirty seconds to allow for user input (for ads or some other content) would not make for a very positive user experience. In short, dynamic content with frequent and numerous opportunities for interaction would not be very usable if paused so frequently. Consider also a stock ticker, where each symbol is a link to that company's home page (or data about that company). How would 2.4 work in this case?

Proposal: No change

Key References: none
Issue 495 (Working Draft): 2.4, 3.5, 4.4: Don't require buffering of lost packets
Name: Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0044
Date: Fri May 11 19:12:57 2001
Category of issue: Automatic changes in content
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0046.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Clarify in checkpoints 2.4, 3.5, and 4.4 that for some presentations, the required functionality may result in information loss. It may be possible to determine from the format that a presentation is "live". In this case, I think we should suggest in the techniques document that the user agent should alert the user (notably in the configuration to pause automatically) that pausing may lead to information loss. We can also recommend some buffering.
Key References: none
Issue 494 (Working Draft): Definition: "Explicit user request" slightly broken
Name: Ian Jacobs / Adobe
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0057.html
Date: Fri May 11 17:59:18 2001
Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility
Type of issue: Definitions
Resolution summary: See resolution of Issue 490 to modify definition of explicit user request.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0211.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
There are some bugs in the definition of "explicit user request". The term "recognize" is used, and that is part of the definition, but the user agent may recognize something that the *user* doesn't know about (e.g., because it's part of the markup that the user doesn't see). We need to clarify how an "explicit user request" is identified. I don't have a proposal today.
Key References: none
Issue 493 (Working Draft): 3.2/3.4: Limit animations to those "in a box"
Name: Ian Jacobs / Adobe
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0057
Date: Fri May 11 18:29:59 2001
Category of issue: Animations
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- No exemption for animations outside the box.
- For checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, eliminate placeholder requirement and point to checkpoint 2.3 since unrendered content becomes conditional content.
- For checkpoint 3.8, put this under Guideline 2 and have it refer to checkpoint 2.3 in the placeholder case.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0211.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

It's not clear that all animated image formats make sense with the requirements of checkpoint 3.2. For instance, those animated images "in a box" make sense (e.g., with respect to placeholders that are also "box-like"), but other animated SVG images may not be "box-like".

There may be some cases where certain animations are authored in a way that makes certain requirements not really apply. For instance, it's possible to author an SVG animation where the animation changes based on user input. What does "fast forward" mean for such an image (checkpoint 4.5). In other cases, there may be interdependencies among animations that make the element-level control of 4.4 difficult or impossible (these are the animations that are not "box-like")..

Proposal from Ian http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0079.html

Key References: none
Issue 492 (Working Draft): History mechanism and relation to plug-ins
Name: Ian Jacobs / Adobe
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0057
Date: Fri May 11 18:28:55 2001
Category of issue: History
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- No change to the document; each viewport maintains its own history information.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0211.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Suppose that a plug-in is used to render a particular image format in a viewport "V". Who is responsible for maintaining the history information (of focus, selection, and point of regard) when the user takes focus from "V" and then gives it back to "V" later? Is it the plug-in's responsibility? Or another module of the user agent (in which case, what is the API used to send history information back to the plug-in)?
Key References: none
Issue 491 (Working Draft): Selection/Focus: Require focus for enabled elements only. Don't requireselection. Clarify that "user interface focus" is not relatedto viewports (but instead to other controls of the user interface).
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:27:27 2001
Category of issue: Conformance
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Yesterday: Our expectation is that the focus only designates 0 or more enabled or disabled elements.
- Content focus / user interface focus is required at all? Yes, but (for content focus) only required when there are enabled elements in a viewport.
- Selection is required at all? No. Proposed: Have a "selection" label.
- Not required to move focus to viewports where there is no interactivity.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Refer also to comments on focus based on Adobe review: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0057

Proposal: a "selection" label (instead of an applicability provision)?

Key References: none
Issue 490 (Working Draft): Series of minor clarifications
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0074
Date: Fri May 11 18:16:27 2001
Category of issue: Editorial
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:

#490: Series of minor clarifications 1) Accept.

2) Accept.

3) Accept.

4) Definition of "empty" string: no *characters*. GR: People are afraid that pages won't validate if no spaces. I have proposed techniques DP: If three spaces are not considered an empty string, then the screen reader will not know that there is anything there.
- Accept as we are matching WCAG 1.0 requirements: null alt is considered valid.
- Our focus requirements of G9 mean that people can get to the links.
- Information is available through the DOM and can find out that images are present.
- Empty string has no characters (including spaces).
- Put in techniques document to allow configuration in case of spaces alone. 5) Accept.

6) Accept.

7) Accept.

8) Accept.

9) Accept.

10) "Indicate the viewport's position relative to rendered content."

11) Accept.

12) Accept. But :
- Don't emphasize single-user environment.
- Change available profiles to available default profiles or those created by the user.

13) Accept.

14) Accept.

15) Accept. Someone might receive claim by email, or might be on CD-ROM. People won't make a conformance claim and hide it from people.
- Add (e.g., on the Web, on CD-ROM, etc.).

16) Accept.

17) Accept.
- Not just 8.2, but also Guideline 6. Resolved: - Added to well-formed claim requirements that claim must include information that enables the user to identify the user agent (e.g., version for a particular natural language).

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0211.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Not listed individually since just for clarification.
Key References: none
Issue 489 (Working Draft): Does "document source" include HTTP headers?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:15:20 2001
Category of issue: DOM
Type of issue: Definitions
Resolution summary:
- Yes, HTTP headers are part of document source.
- "Document source" isn't really used in our document. Document object is (and HTTP headers have already been taken into account).
- No change to the document. - In definition of document source, state that it is prior to repair.
- In checkpoint 2.2, state that the text source is *prior* to repair. It's a text "resource manifestation" as used in [WEBCHAR].
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0207.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

According to our definition document source, HTTP headers are part of the document source. But are they part of content?

The answer is no, not according to our document. We say that the document object is generally derived from the document source (and possibly the result of repair, etc.). The user agent is not required to transfer all of the document source to content (i.e., the document object).

We say that content is the document object. And that conditional content is content. Therefore, conditional content does not include Web resources in other formats (content negotiation) or languages (language negotiation) that the user agent could access but has not due to the user's configuration.

Key References: none
Issue 488 (Working Draft): Glossary: Is the glossary normative or informative?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:14:34 2001
Category of issue: glossary
Type of issue: Definitions
Resolution summary:
- Add to glossary something like: "This is a normative glossary, although some of the terms (or parts of explanations of terms) do not affect conformance."
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0207.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

Proposal: Add the following Note to the beginning of the glossary: "This is a normative glossary, although some of the terms (or parts of explanations of terms) do not affect conformance." I don't think it's worth trying to identify the normative and non-normative parts of the glossary. Or rather, it might be worth it, but I don't want to do it right now.

Key References: none
Issue 487 (Working Draft): 12.5: "All changes" is too broad (for a number of reasons)
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:13:38 2001
Category of issue: Documentation
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- 12.5 Document changes to user agent functionality and user interface that affect accessibility.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0207.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

22a) Change "all changes" to "important changes". This allows some filtering, and probably requires no more interpretation than "all changes" (i.e., it is no more vague thatn 12.5 already is). This doesn't address the problem of confidential information, but I don't think we can do much about that. Instead, it allows developers to satisfy the checkpoint by providing a reasonable list of important changes.

22b) Make this checkpoint a Priority 3 checkpoint. [This part of the proposal can be considered separately.] As a result of issue 373 [7], we chose not to make this checkpoint a P1 checkpoint (since the full documentation is available, so having the changes available separately is not a P1 requirement). However, I am not convinced that having the list of changes available merits even priority 2. [7] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#373

Key References: none
Issue 486 (Working Draft): 12.2, 12.4, 12.5: Definition of features that benefit accessibility.
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:12:31 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Accept Ian's proposed editorial changes to 8.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5
- Move definition of "features that benefit accessibility" to checkpoint 12.2 (not in the Note).
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0207.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

21a) In checkpoint 8.1, change the statement to: "For the purposes of this document, the accessibility features of a specification are those identified as such and those that enable the author to satisfy the requirements of the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10], whatever the priority." Editorial: Should this read "and those" or "or those"?

21b) Harmonize the language of Guideline 12 Notes as follows: "For the purposes of this document, features that benefit or affect accessibility are:

19c) I'd like to factor 21b into one Note (e.g., 12.2) then cross-reference it from the other checkpoints in Guideline 12.

Key References: none
Issue 485 (Working Draft): 10.2, 10.4, 10.7: "Provide a mechanism" what must be done through the UI?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:11:29 2001
Category of issue: Configuration
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Say in techniques for 10.2, 10.4, 10.7 that configuration files are ok.
- If editable configuration files are used, document the syntax etc. of the configuration files.
- Recommend that these features *also* be configurable through the user interface.
- In techniques for 11.6, if profile is editable, document the syntax and semantics.
- In techniques for 12.2, state that documentation of configuration files when used to satisfy other requirements. Give example of focus style through style sheets.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0207.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
-------- Proposal -------- 19a) Add the following statement after the paragraph of section 3.7: "The user agent may satisfy the configuration requirements of this document through configuration files (e.g., profiles). The user agent should (also) allow the user to configure the user agent through the user interface." 19b) Add statements to checkpoints 10.2, 10.4, and 10.7 that since the "mechanisms" themselves do not require user interaction, they can be implemented however the developer chooses. But the interaction part is subject to the paragraph from section 3.7.
Key References: none
Issue 484 (Working Draft): 10.3: Black, white, and color: does graying rely on color?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:10:34 2001
Category of issue: User-control of Style
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- Grey is a color.
IJ will make this clear in the document
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

What if the content is being rendered in black and white (or more likely, different pieces of content are being rendered in different shades of grey)? This checkpoint is designed so that users with some color deficiencies can hope to distinguish selection from focus, etc. by default. Can users with color deficiencies distinguish black from grey? (Obviously, it would be hard for anyone to distinguish two similar shades of grey. We don't talk about "contrast" in any of the checkpoints, because we don't have any requirements that rely on color by default.)

I don't know whether "greying out" disabled elements would be considered a sufficient mechanism for distinguishing, for example, "enabled" from "disabled" elements. Similarly, is a "bold" font distinguishable from "regular" font?

Key References: none
Issue 483 (Working Draft): 10.1: Clarify "purpose of a table"
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:10:10 2001
Category of issue: Tables
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- Clarify in 10.1 that the purpose is recognized through markup.
- Give HTML examples ("summary" and CAPTION elements) in techs document.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Perhaps we should add a parenthetical such as "(e.g., as expressed in a summary or caption)".
Key References: none
Issue 482 (Working Draft): 9.5: Moving focus without triggering handlers may be wrong.
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:09:24 2001
Category of issue: Device Independence
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary: GR and DP will provide examples to show where this feature helps accessibility
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
This functionality (like others in our document) does not guarantee access, and it may even break some pages. Still, it may enable access in some cases where access would not otherwise be possible. Perhaps the best approach is to get more experience with implementations of this checkpoint and see if it's actually usage. A good place to start is to design a test case where we think that not firing an onfocus handler automatically would improve access (in conjunction with the other checkpoints for manual firing).
Key References: none
Issue 481 (Working Draft): 9.2 and 9.6: Definition of "non-interactive element"
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 17:59:18 2001
Category of issue: Navigation
Type of issue: Definitions
Resolution summary: Accept definition: "A non-interactive element is piece of content that, by specification, is not expected to be an enabled element in any user session."
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Proposed definition: "A non-interactive element is piece of content that, by specification, is not expected to be an enabled element in any user session."
Key References: none
Issue 480 (Working Draft): 6.4: Security concerns about write access to controls.
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:04:04 2001
Category of issue: none specified
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Add a Note that due to security considerations, write access may not be available at all times for all sessions. Refer to section on limited functionality and conformance.
- Add a Note about what the goal is: access by trusted ATs.
- Add a cross-reference to the limited functionality case.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:

I suggested that access for plug-ins should be provided, but not for authors (from Web pages). Tantek said that it's not always easy (or possible?) to distinguish the two, notably in the javascript case.

Key References: none
Issue 479 (Working Draft): 4.10: For consistency, P1 for volume control of non-style content, P2 for rest
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:03:20 2001
Category of issue: User-control of Style
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- Adopt proposal 12a, 12b from:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073 - Add to document (e.g., G4 prose) a note about the "lack of space" in the (serial) aural space, so that the distinction between content and UI controls is less obvious. Therefore, while this document in general only makes requirements about aural rendering of content, user agent developers should consider applying these requirements to both content and UI controls.
Resolution URL: http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 478 (Working Draft): 4.9: Clarify that global volume control can cover content and UI controls
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 18:02:37 2001
Category of issue: User-control of Style
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- For 4.9: It's ok if the technique also allows control of UI control volume.
- Add to the Conformance section something like: "For the purposes of conformance, for those requirements that are "Content only" but that also have manifestations in user agent features, a technique that satisfies both Content and user agent features will satisfy the checkpoint except where the checkpoint explicitly states the contrary."
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0161.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 477 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 2.10: Does this also include script (written language), or just natural language?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 17:59:18 2001
Category of issue: Internationalization
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- Clarify that 2.10 includes both.
- Visual output of text relevant to written scripts.
- Spoken output of content relevant to natural language.
- Include Martin's example in techniqeues
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 476 (Working Draft): Definition: rendered content/viewport circular
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 17:58:05 2001
Category of issue: Editorial
Type of issue: Definitions
Resolution summary: - Content includes scripts.
- Rendered content is the part that is perceived by the senses.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Refer also to proposed clarification related to plug-ins: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0057
Key References: none
Issue 475 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 2.9: Does this checkpoint mean auto rendering of all content in same viewport?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 17:56:52 2001
Category of issue: Alternative content
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary: State that to satisfy 2.9, the user agent must allow configuration to render all conditional content automatically, but that this may be done at different time in different viewports. [Indeed, it is probably a big mistake to render everything at once in the same viewport.]
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0161.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Discussed 10 May, no resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0127.html
Key References: none
Issue 474 (Working Draft): Is configuration required when the user agent always/never does something anyway?
Name: Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
Date: Fri May 11 17:24:39 2001
Category of issue: Configuration
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- It is sufficient to satisfy checkpoints 3.3, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, and 5.6 without configuration as long as the user agent provides the accessibility functionality.
- UAs should allow configuration.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0224.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Discussed at 10 May teleconf, no resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0127

Refer to proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0220.html

Key References: none
Issue 473 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 9.4: Priority of list of event handlers lower than priority of activation
Name: Mark Novak
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0105.html
Date: Fri May 11 17:01:08 2001
Category of issue: Device Independence
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:

A user can still navigate to event handlers and activate potential events is the P1 requirement. Knowing what events are available was considered P2 by the group.
See : http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2001/03/ua-minutes

Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0164.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 472 (Working Draft): Checkpoint 6.6: Clarify what is meant by "Accessibility API"
Name: Mark Novak
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0105.html
Date: Fri May 11 16:44:29 2001
Category of issue: Definition
Type of issue: none specified
Resolution summary:
- Accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0169
- Add to 6.X that for (a) or (b), must be publicly documented.
- Add loud cross-refs from 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 to 6.X
- Need to define "available" as in 8.2. Note that this allows older software to conform (since, say, MSAA was not available at the time).
- Change "interoperability with ATs" to "interoperability between the user agent and ATs".
- Add Note that our expectation for interoperability is that more than one AT of the same type and different vendor works with the UA.
- Add Note that 6.X may be satisfied with proprietary technologies.
- Mention but don't require "latest version", backwards compatibility. See 8.2 for similar verbiage for Techniques.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0174.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments: none
Key References: none
Issue 471 (Working Draft): Standard versus proprietary APIs for compatibility with assistive technology
Name: Scott Totman
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0068
Date: Tue Apr 24 07:49:13 2001
Category of issue: Assistive technology compatibility
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary:
- Accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0169
- Add to 6.X that for (a) or (b), must be publicly documented.
- Add loud cross-refs from 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 to 6.X
- Need to define "available" as in 8.2. Note that this allows older software to conform (since, say, MSAA was not available at the time).
- Change "interoperability with ATs" to "interoperability between the user agent and ATs".
- Add Note that our expectation for interoperability is that more than one AT of the same type and different vendor works with the UA.
- Add Note that 6.X may be satisfied with proprietary technologies.
- Mention but don't require "latest version", backwards compatibility. See 8.2 for similar verbiage for Techniques.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0174.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Checkpoint 6.6: I understand the need for standard APIs and documented APIs for non-standard implementations. But because of the way some ATs work, custom code has had to be written by both AOL and AT developers. The same is true for other software companies. I believe a priority one for the implementation of a user agent should be "make it work". Priority two should be "make it work using standards". I can go into much greater detail about this if it draws a discussion.

Refer to similar comments based on discussion with Tantek Celik: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073.html

Refer to comments from Rich on value of standard APIs http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0132.html

Key References: none
Issue 470 (Working Draft): Navigation to disabled active elements
Name: Scott Totman
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0068
Date: Tue Apr 24 07:48:41 2001
Category of issue: Navigation
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary: Clarify definition of enabled/disabled/interactive elements.
Refer to IJ's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0073
- State that the assumption of this document is that the content focus always designates zero or one enabled or disabled elements (but never non-interactive elements).
- No change to checkpoint 9.6, but mention in techniques that a configuration option to include disabled elements (for reasons cited by Scott) is fine.
- Revise definition of focus to set expectations for it. Also mention that a "caret", while it takes keyboard input and is stateful, is not generally used to activate enabled elements and so is not what we are talking about.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0161.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Checkpoint 9.6: Can we allow a configurable option that would include navigation of disabled elements? This may be best suited as a comment in the Techniques section. From our experience, we have elements that are disabled at one time and then enabled at another time. For a consistent navigation, some users have preferred allowing navigation of disabled elements. In this case, the element would simply indicate that it is currently disabled. It prevents the scenario of elements that seem to disappear.
Key References: none
Issue 469 (Working Draft): Write access to controls that can be changed through the user interface
Name: Scott Totman
Source URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0068
Date: Fri Apr 20 09:50:08 2001
Category of issue: User Interface Accessibility
Type of issue: Checkpoints
Resolution summary: For harmony with checkpoint 6.1 (DOM write access):
a) Split 6.3 into read and write, with write access only for what can be done through the UI.
b) Split 6.4 into read and write, with write access only for what can be done through the UI.
Resolution URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001AprJun/0161.html
First working draft: No reference
Comments:
Checkpoint 6.4: I have some concern over the "write access" portion of the checkpoint. For security reasons, we generally need to prevent write access to most of our controls, whether it be from an in-process or out of process application. Also, for consistency with checkpoint 6.2, limit the write requirement to those controls that may be edited through the user interface
Key References: none

Index of Issues by Category

User Interface Accessibility
LC(third)#469: Write access to controls that can be changed through the user interface (Resolved)
LC(third)#494: Definition: "Explicit user request" slightly broken (Resolved)
Navigation
LC(third)#470: Navigation to disabled active elements (Resolved)
LC(third)#481: 9.2 and 9.6: Definition of "non-interactive element" (Resolved)
Assistive technology compatibility
LC(third)#471: Standard versus proprietary APIs for compatibility with assistive technology (Resolved)
LC(third)#515: API requirements for communication between User Agents and Assistive Technologies (Resolved)
Definition
LC(third)#472: Checkpoint 6.6: Clarify what is meant by "Accessibility API" (Resolved)
LC(third)#511: What is definition of applet? (Resolved)
Device Independence
LC(third)#473: Checkpoint 9.4: Priority of list of event handlers lower than priority of activation (Resolved)
LC(third)#482: 9.5: Moving focus without triggering handlers may be wrong. (Resolved)
LC(third)#503: 9.3: Clarification requested: does this mean that onfocus events are not triggered? (Resolved)
Configuration
LC(third)#474: Is configuration required when the user agent always/never does something anyway? (Resolved)
LC(third)#485: 10.2, 10.4, 10.7: "Provide a mechanism" what must be done through the UI? (Resolved)
LC(third)#506: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different components control different content? (Resolved)
LC(third)#510: Conformance: How to observe OS conventions when building a cross-platform user agent? (Resolved)
LC(third)#512: Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes (Resolved)
Alternative content
LC(third)#475: Checkpoint 2.9: Does this checkpoint mean auto rendering of all content in same viewport? (Resolved)
Editorial
LC(third)#476: Definition: rendered content/viewport circular (Resolved)
LC(third)#490: Series of minor clarifications (Resolved)
Internationalization
LC(third)#477: Checkpoint 2.10: Does this also include script (written language), or just natural language? (Resolved)
User-control of Style
LC(third)#478: 4.9: Clarify that global volume control can cover content and UI controls (Resolved)
LC(third)#479: 4.10: For consistency, P1 for volume control of non-style content, P2 for rest (Resolved)
LC(third)#484: 10.3: Black, white, and color: does graying rely on color? (Resolved)
LC(third)#502: What constitutes blinking? (Resolved)
LC(third)#507: 4.3: If no global background color, does checkpoint apply if user agent can do on a regional basis? (Resolved)
Other
LC(third)#480: 6.4: Security concerns about write access to controls. (Resolved)
LC(third)#486: 12.2, 12.4, 12.5: Definition of features that benefit accessibility. (Resolved)
LC(third)#496: 2.4: How useful in heavily interactive presentations? (Resolved)
LC(third)#497: 2.4: What is scope; what must the user agent pause? (Resolved)
LC(third)#500: 4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints, how does override work? Can captions be positioned in a separate viewport? (Resolved)
LC(third)#513: Checkpoint 2.9: What if automatic rendering unspecified or contradicts specification? (Resolved)
LC(third)#514: Checkpoint 1.1: If UA functionalities are keyboard operable, must all UI controls be? (Resolved)
LC(third)#516: 2.4: Checkpoint doesn't make sense for SMIL 2.0 (Resolved)
LC(third)#517: Checkpoint 4.4: Does this make sense for nested (SMIL Animation) time containers? (Resolved)
Tables
LC(third)#483: 10.1: Clarify "purpose of a table" (Resolved)
Documentation
LC(third)#487: 12.5: "All changes" is too broad (for a number of reasons) (Resolved)
glossary
LC(third)#488: Glossary: Is the glossary normative or informative? (Resolved)
DOM
LC(third)#489: Does "document source" include HTTP headers? (Resolved)
LC(third)#509: 6.1, 6.2: P1 to provide access to content (e.g., in raw form), DOM either P2 or alternative (Resolved)
Conformance
LC(third)#491: Selection/Focus: Require focus for enabled elements only. Don't requireselection. Clarify that "user interface focus" is not relatedto viewports (but instead to other controls of the user interface). (Resolved)
LC(third)#498: 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, 8.2: Conformance for some but not all formats (Resolved)
LC(third)#518: Conformance icons: Remove them or make them about unverified claims. (Resolved)
History
LC(third)#492: History mechanism and relation to plug-ins (Resolved)
Animations
LC(third)#493: 3.2/3.4: Limit animations to those "in a box" (Resolved)
LC(third)#499: 3.3: Relationship between streaming text and animated text (Resolved)
Automatic changes in content
LC(third)#495: 2.4, 3.5, 4.4: Don't require buffering of lost packets (Resolved)
Orientation
LC(third)#501: 10.9: What is scope of position indicator? (Resolved)
OS Conventions
LC(third)#504: 7.2, 10.3, 10.7, 12.3: Default values and inheritance from operating environment (Resolved)
Keyboard
LC(third)#505: 11.3: Propose that single-key mode would be sufficient technique (Resolved)
Multimedia
LC(third)#508: 4.5: Require clarification - is fast playback required, or just the ability to jump forward in time? (Resolved)

Index of Issues by Name of Person Raising the Issue

Scott Totman
LC(third)#469: Write access to controls that can be changed through the user interface (Resolved)
LC(third)#470: Navigation to disabled active elements (Resolved)
LC(third)#471: Standard versus proprietary APIs for compatibility with assistive technology (Resolved)
Mark Novak
LC(third)#472: Checkpoint 6.6: Clarify what is meant by "Accessibility API" (Resolved)
LC(third)#473: Checkpoint 9.4: Priority of list of event handlers lower than priority of activation (Resolved)
Ian Jacobs / Tantek Çelik
LC(third)#474: Is configuration required when the user agent always/never does something anyway? (Resolved)
LC(third)#475: Checkpoint 2.9: Does this checkpoint mean auto rendering of all content in same viewport? (Resolved)
LC(third)#476: Definition: rendered content/viewport circular (Resolved)
LC(third)#477: Checkpoint 2.10: Does this also include script (written language), or just natural language? (Resolved)
LC(third)#478: 4.9: Clarify that global volume control can cover content and UI controls (Resolved)
LC(third)#479: 4.10: For consistency, P1 for volume control of non-style content, P2 for rest (Resolved)
LC(third)#480: 6.4: Security concerns about write access to controls. (Resolved)
LC(third)#481: 9.2 and 9.6: Definition of "non-interactive element" (Resolved)
LC(third)#482: 9.5: Moving focus without triggering handlers may be wrong. (Resolved)
LC(third)#483: 10.1: Clarify "purpose of a table" (Resolved)
LC(third)#484: 10.3: Black, white, and color: does graying rely on color? (Resolved)
LC(third)#485: 10.2, 10.4, 10.7: "Provide a mechanism" what must be done through the UI? (Resolved)
LC(third)#486: 12.2, 12.4, 12.5: Definition of features that benefit accessibility. (Resolved)
LC(third)#487: 12.5: "All changes" is too broad (for a number of reasons) (Resolved)
LC(third)#488: Glossary: Is the glossary normative or informative? (Resolved)
LC(third)#489: Does "document source" include HTTP headers? (Resolved)
LC(third)#490: Series of minor clarifications (Resolved)
LC(third)#491: Selection/Focus: Require focus for enabled elements only. Don't requireselection. Clarify that "user interface focus" is not relatedto viewports (but instead to other controls of the user interface). (Resolved)
LC(third)#512: Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes (Resolved)
Ian Jacobs / Adobe
LC(third)#492: History mechanism and relation to plug-ins (Resolved)
LC(third)#493: 3.2/3.4: Limit animations to those "in a box" (Resolved)
LC(third)#494: Definition: "Explicit user request" slightly broken (Resolved)
Ian Jacobs / Real / MS
LC(third)#495: 2.4, 3.5, 4.4: Don't require buffering of lost packets (Resolved)
LC(third)#496: 2.4: How useful in heavily interactive presentations? (Resolved)
LC(third)#497: 2.4: What is scope; what must the user agent pause? (Resolved)
LC(third)#498: 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, 8.2: Conformance for some but not all formats (Resolved)
LC(third)#499: 3.3: Relationship between streaming text and animated text (Resolved)
LC(third)#500: 4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints, how does override work? Can captions be positioned in a separate viewport? (Resolved)
LC(third)#501: 10.9: What is scope of position indicator? (Resolved)
Ian Jacobs / Opera
LC(third)#502: What constitutes blinking? (Resolved)
LC(third)#503: 9.3: Clarification requested: does this mean that onfocus events are not triggered? (Resolved)
LC(third)#504: 7.2, 10.3, 10.7, 12.3: Default values and inheritance from operating environment (Resolved)
LC(third)#505: 11.3: Propose that single-key mode would be sufficient technique (Resolved)
Real Networks
LC(third)#506: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different components control different content? (Resolved)
LC(third)#507: 4.3: If no global background color, does checkpoint apply if user agent can do on a regional basis? (Resolved)
LC(third)#508: 4.5: Require clarification - is fast playback required, or just the ability to jump forward in time? (Resolved)
LC(third)#509: 6.1, 6.2: P1 to provide access to content (e.g., in raw form), DOM either P2 or alternative (Resolved)
LC(third)#510: Conformance: How to observe OS conventions when building a cross-platform user agent? (Resolved)
Sun
LC(third)#511: What is definition of applet? (Resolved)
Steven Pemberton / HTML
LC(third)#513: Checkpoint 2.9: What if automatic rendering unspecified or contradicts specification? (Resolved)
Jonny Axelson / Opera
LC(third)#514: Checkpoint 1.1: If UA functionalities are keyboard operable, must all UI controls be? (Resolved)
Jon Gunderson
LC(third)#515: API requirements for communication between User Agents and Assistive Technologies (Resolved)
SVG WG
LC(third)#516: 2.4: Checkpoint doesn't make sense for SMIL 2.0 (Resolved)
LC(third)#517: Checkpoint 4.4: Does this make sense for nested (SMIL Animation) time containers? (Resolved)
LC(third)#518: Conformance icons: Remove them or make them about unverified claims. (Resolved)

Index of Issues by Type

Checkpoints
LC(third)#469: Write access to controls that can be changed through the user interface (Resolved)
LC(third)#470: Navigation to disabled active elements (Resolved)
LC(third)#471: Standard versus proprietary APIs for compatibility with assistive technology (Resolved)
LC(third)#473: Checkpoint 9.4: Priority of list of event handlers lower than priority of activation (Resolved)
LC(third)#477: Checkpoint 2.10: Does this also include script (written language), or just natural language? (Resolved)
LC(third)#479: 4.10: For consistency, P1 for volume control of non-style content, P2 for rest (Resolved)
LC(third)#482: 9.5: Moving focus without triggering handlers may be wrong. (Resolved)
LC(third)#483: 10.1: Clarify "purpose of a table" (Resolved)
LC(third)#484: 10.3: Black, white, and color: does graying rely on color? (Resolved)
LC(third)#487: 12.5: "All changes" is too broad (for a number of reasons) (Resolved)
LC(third)#493: 3.2/3.4: Limit animations to those "in a box" (Resolved)
LC(third)#507: 4.3: If no global background color, does checkpoint apply if user agent can do on a regional basis? (Resolved)
LC(third)#512: Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes (Resolved)
LC(third)#515: API requirements for communication between User Agents and Assistive Technologies (Resolved)
No type
LC(third)#472: Checkpoint 6.6: Clarify what is meant by "Accessibility API" (Resolved)
LC(third)#474: Is configuration required when the user agent always/never does something anyway? (Resolved)
LC(third)#475: Checkpoint 2.9: Does this checkpoint mean auto rendering of all content in same viewport? (Resolved)
LC(third)#478: 4.9: Clarify that global volume control can cover content and UI controls (Resolved)
LC(third)#480: 6.4: Security concerns about write access to controls. (Resolved)
LC(third)#485: 10.2, 10.4, 10.7: "Provide a mechanism" what must be done through the UI? (Resolved)
LC(third)#486: 12.2, 12.4, 12.5: Definition of features that benefit accessibility. (Resolved)
LC(third)#490: Series of minor clarifications (Resolved)
LC(third)#491: Selection/Focus: Require focus for enabled elements only. Don't requireselection. Clarify that "user interface focus" is not relatedto viewports (but instead to other controls of the user interface). (Resolved)
LC(third)#492: History mechanism and relation to plug-ins (Resolved)
LC(third)#495: 2.4, 3.5, 4.4: Don't require buffering of lost packets (Resolved)
LC(third)#496: 2.4: How useful in heavily interactive presentations? (Resolved)
LC(third)#497: 2.4: What is scope; what must the user agent pause? (Resolved)
LC(third)#498: 2.1, 2.2, 8.1, 8.2: Conformance for some but not all formats (Resolved)
LC(third)#499: 3.3: Relationship between streaming text and animated text (Resolved)
LC(third)#500: 4.6: When captions are positioned with constraints, how does override work? Can captions be positioned in a separate viewport? (Resolved)
LC(third)#501: 10.9: What is scope of position indicator? (Resolved)
LC(third)#502: What constitutes blinking? (Resolved)
LC(third)#503: 9.3: Clarification requested: does this mean that onfocus events are not triggered? (Resolved)
LC(third)#504: 7.2, 10.3, 10.7, 12.3: Default values and inheritance from operating environment (Resolved)
LC(third)#505: 11.3: Propose that single-key mode would be sufficient technique (Resolved)
LC(third)#506: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3: How does one value work when different components control different content? (Resolved)
LC(third)#508: 4.5: Require clarification - is fast playback required, or just the ability to jump forward in time? (Resolved)
LC(third)#509: 6.1, 6.2: P1 to provide access to content (e.g., in raw form), DOM either P2 or alternative (Resolved)
LC(third)#510: Conformance: How to observe OS conventions when building a cross-platform user agent? (Resolved)
LC(third)#511: What is definition of applet? (Resolved)
LC(third)#513: Checkpoint 2.9: What if automatic rendering unspecified or contradicts specification? (Resolved)
LC(third)#514: Checkpoint 1.1: If UA functionalities are keyboard operable, must all UI controls be? (Resolved)
LC(third)#516: 2.4: Checkpoint doesn't make sense for SMIL 2.0 (Resolved)
LC(third)#517: Checkpoint 4.4: Does this make sense for nested (SMIL Animation) time containers? (Resolved)
LC(third)#518: Conformance icons: Remove them or make them about unverified claims. (Resolved)
Definitions
LC(third)#476: Definition: rendered content/viewport circular (Resolved)
LC(third)#481: 9.2 and 9.6: Definition of "non-interactive element" (Resolved)
LC(third)#488: Glossary: Is the glossary normative or informative? (Resolved)
LC(third)#489: Does "document source" include HTTP headers? (Resolved)
LC(third)#494: Definition: "Explicit user request" slightly broken (Resolved)

Return to homepage