User Agent Issue List: Second Candidate Recommendation
User Agent Issue List: Second Candidate RecommendationLast updated on: Thu Jul 4 16:10:52 2002
This may be confusing with our use of the term "refresh" in checkpoint 3.5. We need to define our terms and intention carefully:
This checkpoint is about the viewport's position in rendered content, not download progress. To avoid confusion, the checkpoint title should be "Indicate viewport position". We may also want to state clearly in the checkpoint that this is *not* a requirement to indicate download progress.
Secondly, I think that one goal of this checkpoint is that this information be available as text. I think our intention was that, since this information is a message to the user, checkpoint 1.3 covers the text requirement. This could be clarified with some kind of cross reference to checkpoint 1.3.
The first provision of the checkpoint is:
1. For the configuration requirements of this document, allow the user to save user preferences in at least one user profile.
Does the user agent satisfy this requirement simply by allowing the user to save various configurations (that then take effect when the UA is next launched)? Or is the requirement that the profile be somehow portable, i.e., removable from the user agent, applicable to the same UA on another machine, etc.? The checkpoint doesn't convey that requirement if that's what was intended.
If the user agent has a "Restore defaults" button that cancels the user's configuration when restoring the default settings, is that a problem?
See also comments in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0085
See proposal from IJ on addressing this: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0021
See revised proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0081.html
The checkpoint title is "Move content focus optimally". The word "optimal" is a bit strong.
Proposal: Change the title to "Move content focus reverse" since the primary (but not only) difference from 9.3 is the reverse requirement.
See proposal from IJ based on CMN comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0051
Some ideas:
Comments:
Proposal:
Discussed at 28 March teleconf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0120
See proposal relating to infoset, and dom in some cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0121.html
See Chair summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002JanMar/0123.html
See table of AT developer requirements: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2002/04/api-reqs
Note that UAAG 1.0 explicitly does not require that the DOM reflect corrections that the UA has made (to invalid content) before rendering. This is a very relevant issue w.r.t. Jill Thomas's commehts. Sounds like some AT developers want corrected content (that corresponds to a primary rendering) and some do not.
See summary of where we are with DOM reqs and accompanying proposal.
See Proposed rewrite of G6 based on 16 May teleconf.
Consider security an orthogonal issue to UAAG 1.0 requirements; no security exceptions in checkpoints.
IJ will add a section to next draft of document based on proposal.
For 6.2, Tantek stated that there are security issues for some types of programmatic access to content. (for instance, programmatic access to HTML's INPUT element, type="file", which might allow the author to upload a file from the user's computer without the user's permission).
Change 6.3.1 to: "For content other than HTML and XML, provide programmatic read access according to the structure of the content."
In Techniques Document, talk about different ways of processing information:
"Once the user has viewed the original author-supplied content associated with a placeholder, allow the user to turn off the rendering of the author-supplied content."
Proposed:
If the user agent has satisfied checkpoint 2.3 by using a placeholder, then allow the user to toggle rendering between the placeholder and the original author-supplied content." Initially resolved here to clarify: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0060.html
UAAG 1.0 doesn't require conformance for all implemented formats (you indicate which formats your support for conformance in claim). But a requirement like "turn off all iamges", does this apply to all formats, or just formats used to conform to the Image content type label?
Talked about at 4 April 2002 teleconference http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0027.html
Refer to proposal from IJ: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2002AprJun/0083
This seems most connected to timely access checkpoint. Add a note that says if exporting but not out of process, then likely to satisfy timely access. If exporting out of process, pay close attention to timely access checkpoint.
