W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: IBM's ATAG 2.0 comments

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:51:02 +0100
To: <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050126154878.SM03892@Inbox>

I disagree about the idea to not refer to ISO.
This is also a strange position of IBM: ISO TS 16071:2003  is based on IBM software accessibility guidelines and with other references and it's the only reference that could be defined as "standard".
We need to work for the world wide web application interface accessibility (btw, also ISO is working on this topic) and for the production of guidelines that guarantee creation of accessible content.
If ISO refer to WAI, why we shouldn't refer to a real technical specification?
----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Jutta Treviranus"<jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
    Inviato: 26/01/05 21.22.03
    A: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Fw: IBM's ATAG 2.0 comments
    
    I am forwarding this review of the last call document by IBM, from 
    Barry, to the list.
    
    Jutta
    
    ----- Forwarded by Barry Feigenbaum/Austin/IBM on 01/26/2005 10:28 AM -----
    Barry Feigenbaum/Austin/IBM
    
    01/24/2005 01:24 PM
    To
    w3c-wai-au@w3.org
    cc
    Subject
    IBM's ATAG 2.0 comments
    
    
    
    
    Here are some comments I have collected from IBMers with interest in 
    this subject .  I have not filtered the comments all that much (just 
    removed personal identifiers and any IBM confidential info).  They 
    are grouped by the source (so there may be repeating or conflicting 
    comments) .  I have added my thoughts after some of them with BAF 
    leads (note I may not always agree with the original comment author's 
    position, I need to work more inside IBM to come up with a firm 
    consolidated position in these situations - I didn't want to hold 
    this input up until I could get that.).
    
    (sorry this comes after last call, it was hard to get this level of 
    input to earlier drafts, although I did ask).
    
    Some comments may also already have come in from the source directly.
    
    Overall I think we really need to revisit depending on the ISO 
    standard for non-web tools and define our own criteria.  I was queasy 
    about this before (since I never actually saw the standard) but now 
    that other IBMers have assessed it as is as being problematic, I can 
    no longer agree to depending on it solely.
    
    We also need to revisit the disabled JavaScript position.  I think 
    our position should be you can use JavaScript and depend on it (ie 
    can't be turned off) but the result must be accessible. If not then 
    alternate content is required.  Some JS driven GUIs are just to 
    complicated and interactive to expect alternate implementations (with 
    similar appearance).  Of course, all the functions of the site should 
    be available in some form for all users, even if using different UI 
    metaphors..
    
    
     From an IBM accessibility enablement consultant:
    
    Does Europe require Priority 1, 1 and 2, 1 and 2 and 3?  I might 
    change priorities based on how they are viewed.
    BAF this is on ISO standard use. The concern is some countries may 
    require all criteria to be met.  Big (possibly impossible) burden on 
    tool developers.
    1) Checkpoint 1.1 I was disappointed that the URL in the ISO - TS - 
    16071 does not take you to the document.   Since it is assumed that 
    you will use 16071,   for checkpoint 1.1 I think a direct link is 
    needed.  What priority is this checkpoint?
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 20:51:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:04 GMT