W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: ATAG 2.0 Comments

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:37:29 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Cc: "'Ben Caldwell'" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "'GVAN'" <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Message-ID: <013d01c738ed$5e8222e0$88e8710a@NC84301>
To follow up on previous Trace comment #7



7.) definition of "available programmatically" - This seems only to say 
that it's possible for the information to be communicated, not that it 
has been. Is there something in ATAG that requires that information that 
"should" be available to AT actually is available? The concern here is 
that these SC would be met if the info is available regardless of 
whether AT actually make use of it.
One example of this is:
If a company creates a new technology (and an author tool for it), should
the technology be considered accessible if the author tool exposes
information in a way that is not compatible with any existing AT?    What is
the good?     It is not directly accessible and it is not compatible with
any AT.   It could SOMEDAY be accessible - but not today.   And it may never
be.    Should we say that that is better than closed with no possibility of
access?  Probably.  But shouldn't it be different than technologies that can
actually be used by people with disabilities?   Current draft does not seem
to do this. 
In WCAG 'programmatically determined' relies on 'accessibility-supported'



Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 



Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 21:37:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:54 UTC