W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

Comment LC-1034

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:06:29 +1000
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000e01c7b78e$3d96cac0$b300a8c0@tkhcomputer>

Comment 15:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1034)

Baseline - Has the WG given any thought to people who decide to turn off
technologies that could be in a baseline (eg. Javascript, Flash
etc) because that is their preferred way of browsing - due to their
disability?  Has the WG given any thought to people who use assistive
technologies that cannot interpret the output of certain technologies (eg.
some screen readers cannot use javascript)?

Proposed Change:

Remove the baseline theory, or allow only UAAG compliant programs in

Response from Working Group:

The working group has debated issues such as these extensively. The concept
of baseline (now "accessibility-supported content
technologies") grew out those struggles. If the assistive technologies that
people use do not support certain technologies, then those technologies are
not accessibility-supported Web technologies. However, people turning off
support for technologies because they prefer not to use them is not an
accessibility issue, since people without disabilities who choose to disable
certain technologies will have equal difficulty accessing the content.

Your proposal is that the only technologies that can be used are those for
which there exist UAAG-compliant user agents. Since there are not yet any
fully UAAG-compliant user agents, this requirement would mean that there
could be no WCAG-complaint content possible. And the existence of a
UAAG-compliant user agent doesn't mean that users have it available to them.
So requiring UAAG-compliant user agents is not a guarantee of accessibility
(although WCAG would be much easier to write if it could rely on UAAG
compliant user agents).
Response from GSW:
My concern was with people turning off technologies because they could not
interact with the content - due to their disability - when that technology
was enabled. For example, someone with a cognitive disability easily
distracted may choose to turn off Flash to turn off that flashing banner
which undermines their ability to read the content - if that then means that
they can't use the Flash navigation then what?
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 01:06:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:44 UTC