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 22:20:43 +0100
To: <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200501261617421.SM03892@Inbox>

More comments reply (sorry for top post... I'm with pda). Here the other topics

Script must Be itself accessible, and input device-independent. JavaScript should follow the scripting accessibility techniques that are under developing in wcag wg:
Client-side Scripting Techniques for WCAG 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-SCRIPT-TECHS/)

Europe "suggest" to conform to wcag 1.0 level AA and to ATAG 1.0 (without specify a level). So Europe ask to members to adopt national guidelines following EU directives. I haven't report about members in EU that require conformance to ATAG.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>
    Inviato: 26/01/05 21.51.02
    A: "jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca"<jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, "w3c-wai-au@w3.org"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: IBM's ATAG 2.0 comments
    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.
        ----- Forwarded by Barry Feigenbaum/Austin/IBM on 01/26/2005 10:28 AM -----
        Barry Feigenbaum/Austin/IBM
        01/24/2005 01:24 PM
        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 
         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 21:20:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:52 UTC