W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2007

Fwd: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:05:59 -0500
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20071104230815.C39644F2C9@homer.w3.org>

Dear EOWG,

Please find, below, WCAG WG's reply on EOWG's comments in response to 
the May 2007 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft. As we will need to reply back 
rather quickly to these specific comment resolutions, we will be 
looking for a brief opportunity to discuss these during the 
face-to-face meeting this week, and I'll be providing a bit of 
additional detail on several additional comments which we had 
discussed in July.

- Judy


>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:24:11 -0700
>From: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
>To: "Judy Brewer, on behalf of the Education and Outreach Working 
>Group" <jbrewer@w3.org>
>Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007
>Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
>
>Dear EOWG,
>
>Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of
>the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group
>has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be
>publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that,
>we would like to know whether we have understood your comments
>correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.
>
>Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
>us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
>you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also
>that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of
>the entire document at this time.
>
>Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
>resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the
>archived copy of your original comment on
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may
>also include links to the relevant changes in the WCAG 2.0 Editor's
>Draft of May-October 2007 at
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/
>
>Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we
>cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the
>comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0.
>
>Regards,
>
>Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
>Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
>Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact
>
>On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 1: LC-1001: definition of assistive technology
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0405.html
>(Issue ID: 2270)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>The revised definition is as difficult to understand as the original. The
>explanation "user agents are user agents in the general sense" does not
>help comprehension. Also, if the second paragraph of the definition is
>retained, it should become a note.
>
>Please consider using the following definition instead:
>
>          "...a user agent that translates web content into a format that is
>perceivable, operable and understandable for individuals with disabilities
>is called an assistive technology. Assistive technologies for Web content
>rely on services such as retrieving, parsing and analyzing Web content that
>are often provided by mainstream user agents or operating systems."
>
>In addition, please consider using the following as a replacement for Note 2:
>
>          "The distinction between mainstream user agents and assistive
>technologies is real but not absolute. Most mainstream user agents provide
>some features listed above to assist individuals with disabilities. The
>basic difference is that mainstream user agents target broad and diverse
>audiences that usually include people with and without disabilities.
>Assistive technologies target narrowly defined populations of users with
>specific disabilities. The assistance provided by an assistive technology
>is more specific and appropriate to the needs of its target users."
>
>In addition, we would like to submit suggestions for edits to the examples
>which follow this definition, but are still working on those.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We have accepted the substance of your suggestions, with some wording
>tweaks. The definition now reads:
>
>     hardware and/or software that acts as a user agent, or along with
>a mainstream user agent, to provide services to meet the requirements
>of users with disabilities that go beyond those offered by the
>mainstream user agents
>
>     Note 1: Services provided by assistive technology include
>alternative presentations (e.g., as synthesized speech or magnified
>content), alternative input methods (e.g., voice), additional
>navigation or orientation mechanisms, and content transformations
>(e.g., to make tables more accessible).
>
>     Note 2: Assistive technologies often communicate data and messages
>with mainstream user agents by using and monitoring APIs.
>
>     Note 3: The distinction between mainstream user agents and
>assistive technologies is not absolute. Many mainstream user agents
>provide some features to assist individuals with disabilities. The
>basic difference is that mainstream user agents target broad and
>diverse audiences that usually include people with and without
>disabilities. Assistive technologies target narrowly defined
>populations of users with specific disabilities. The assistance
>provided by an assistive technology is more specific and appropriate
>to the needs of its target users. The mainstream user agent may
>provide important services to assistive technologies like retrieving
>Web content from program objects or parsing markup into identifiable
>bundles.
>
>     Example: Examples of assistive technologies that are important in
>the context of this document include the following:
>
>         * screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants,
>which are used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print
>disabilities to change text font, size, spacing, color,
>synchronization with speech, etc. in order to improve the visual
>readability of rendered text and images;
>         * screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to
>read textual information through synthesized speech or braille;
>         * text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with
>cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into
>synthetic speech;
>         * voice recognition software, which may be used by people who
>have some physical disabilities;
>         * alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain
>physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate
>keyboards that use headpointers, single switches, sip/puff and other
>special input devices.);
>         * alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with
>certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button
>activations.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 2: LC-1018: handles for guidelines
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0405.html
>(Issue ID: 2271)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>Thank you for including handles in the success criteria, but we had also
>recommended them for the guidelines themselves.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We have now created Handles for the Guidelines as well.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 3: accessibility-supported technologies
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2273)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>1. [conformance section] EOWG feels that the goal for the section on
>accessibility supported technologies should be that the average developer
>should be able to read the section and understand the concept; understand
>the importance of the concept; and understand that one should be able to go
>to a list of accessibility supported technologies.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>The new language should be closer to this goal.  This is technical
>though and difficult to make clear.  If there are specific suggestions
>for wording, please forward for consideration.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 4: use accessibility-supported technologies
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2274)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>2. [conformance section] Explain clearly & simply, as part of the
>introductory paragraph, that some technologies support assistive
>technologies, and that these are the ones that one should use.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>The Introduction section was moved to Understanding WCAG, but
>'accessibility supported' is mentioned in the introductory sentence
>(all there is) and then clearly explained in conformance requirement
>#6 which follows shortly after.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 5: web technologies
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2275)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>3. [conformance section] In the first paragraph of "accessibility support
>of web technologies" please add "Web" in front of the two uses of
>"technologies" that do not currently have any other descriptor, so as to
>clearly separate reference to the authors' (Web) technologies from
>reference to the users (assistive) technologies. We suggest that this
>differentiation be checked throughout the document.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>They now say  "Web content technology"
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 6: start by saying what accessibility-supported technologies are
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2276)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>4. [conformance section] Please present the reader with a short description
>of what accessibility supported technologies are, before telling when/where
>they need to be used, and that the author must use them. Right now the
>definition is doubly embedded in two other concepts in the intro paragraph.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>{Accept}
>
>We have now provided a link from the place it is first used to
>"Understanding Accessibility Support" which provides a detailed
>description.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 7: reorder conformance section contents
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2277)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>5. [conformance section] Take the sentence about what this section covers
>and put it at the very beginning of the section; then give the short
>version of what conformance means; then say it's normative; then make sure
>that the promised sequence matches the actual sequence.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>A short introductory sentence provides an overview. Conformance is
>linked to its definition. The document flows from there as described.
>This is now much shorter and more straightforward.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 8: suggestions for conformance requirements
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2278)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>6. [conformance requirements] EOWG may have further clarification questions
>for document editors, and/or suggestions for edits to this section, but
>does not have our editorial suggestions ready at this time. Our questions
>include whether there may be unnecessary redundancies in requirements 5 and
>6, or whether any of that content might potentially belong in the
>guidelines themselves.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Conformance Requirements 5 (now 4) and 6 (now 5) are independent.
>
>Conformance Requirement 5 talks about what is relied upon in making
>the conformance statement, while Conformance Requirement 6 is focused
>on what the non-conforming (and non-relied upon) technologies must do.
>
>Note that Item 1 and 2 have been dropped from Conformance Requirement
>6 (now 5) but the other one (3) still applies  since it is a
>'condition' under which the success criterion must apply, and not a
>success criterion itself.  Since there is only one it was merged into
>the provision itself as a second sentence.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 9: define Perceivable
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2279)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>7. [principle 1] "'Perceivable'" is neither explained nor defined here, nor
>is there a link to an explanation or a definition. Where it is first used
>in the introduction, the explanation is brief, and is not linked to the
>expanded explanation in the "Understanding" document. Please explain, or
>define, or link to such information.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>By Perceivable  we mean "able to become aware of through the senses"
>(Webster).  This is the standard meaning for the word.  To keep the
>glossary (which is already very long) from getting longer we do not
>include words that are not used in any manner other than their
>ordinary dictionary meaning.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 10: Use consistent terminology for conformance levels
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2280)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>8. [reference] The current draft uses inconsistent terminology for
>conformance levels (see the intro, then the conformance referencing
>section). Please synchronize terminology.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Both the intro and conformance section have been rewritten and
>conformance levels are now consistent.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 11: simplify this section
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2281)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>9. [referencing: support documents] This section needs simplification and
>copyediting to clarify the meaning and eliminate redundancies; also, it
>should be included in the supporting documents.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We agree.  We have moved this topic to Appendix A of Understanding WCAG 2.0.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 12: editorial
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2282)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>10. [referencing] Add "or must" after "shall."
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We have updated the draft as proposed.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 13: "this language can be inserted in your own documents"
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2283)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>11. [referencing] After "this is informative," add "Please note that the
>following language for referencing WCAG 2.0 can be inserted into your own
>documents."
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We have added the sentence as proposed.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 14: All of Level 3 not required?
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2284)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>2. [referencing] If maintaining that all of Level 3 should not be
>required, a better explanation is needed for why this is so.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We recommend that Level AAA not be required for general web content.
>It is possible for some types of Web pages and Web sites to conform to
>all Level AAA success criteria. If the requirement were only applied
>to such content, it would be an appropriate requirement.
>
>However, since it will be impossible for some types of Web pages to
>meet this level of conformance, requiring it for general content will
>exclude some kinds of functionality from being provided on the web.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 15: Turn discussion into example
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2285)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>13. [referencing] Please simplify "That is, it is possible to require 'all
>of Level 1 and [some specific list of success criteria in Level 2 and Level
>3]' be met" by turning it into an example, e.g.: "For example, 'all of
>Level 1 and [some specific list of success criteria in Level 2 and Level 3].'"
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you. We have updated the draft as proposed.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 16: contradiction between subprovisions
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2286)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>14. [referencing] The 4th subprovision under the "shall" section
>contradicts the third example, in that it implies that one can require
>conformance to all Level 3 success criteria.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>It is not a contradiction, since it is possible for some Web pages and
>Web sites to conform to all Level AAA success criteria. If the
>requirement were only applied to such content, it would be an
>appropriate requirement.
>
>However, since it will be impossible for some types of Web pages to
>meet this level of conformance, requiring it for general content will
>exclude some kinds of functionality from being provided on the web.
>
>We have moved the note to follow the 4th subprovision, to alert
>readers to this issue.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 17: Possible additional editorial suggestions
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2287)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>15. [intro to referencing section] EOWG may have further clarification
>questions for document editors, and/or suggestions for edits to this
>section, but does not have our specific editorial suggestions ready at this
>time.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We appreciate EOWG's suggestions for improving the WCAG documents.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 18: Rewording of 1.1.1
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2288)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>16. [SC 1.1.1] Consider flipping the existing sentence to: "If non-text
>content is any of the following, then text alternatives at least identify
>the non-text content with a descriptive text label: multimedia, live
>audio-only or live video-only content, a test or exercise that must be
>presented in non-text format, or primarily intended to create a specific
>sensory experience."
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you for your suggestion.  We have updated the text as proposed.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 19: distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2289)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>17. [guideline 2] The difference between 2.2.2 (blinking) and 2.3.1
>(flashing) is not clear even with the links to definitions, as the
>definitions are mutually self-referencing and seem just like different
>degrees of the same thing. Either differentiate more in the SC themselves,
>or combine them.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We have added a definition for flash and clarified the difference
>between flash and blink both in the definitions and (in longer form)
>in the understanding document
>
>---
>
>flash: a pair of opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more
>where the relative luminance of the darker image is below 0.80
>
>Note: Flash is characterized by rapid changes of relative luminance
>occurring more than three times per second, while [blink] is less than
>three times per second.
>
>Note: See [general flash threshold] and [red flash threshold] for more
>precise information about the applicability and constraints of flash.
>
>---
>
>blink: switch back and forth between two visual states in a way that
>that does not qualify as [flash] (e.g. it is too slow and/or the
>change in relative luminance is too small to qualify as flashing)
>
>Note: The slower blink is in contrast with [flash], which refers to
>rapid changes in brightness which can cause seizures. See [general
>flash] and [red flash] thresholds.
>
>---
>
>Added to understanding documents: NOTE: In some cases, what we refer
>to as "blinking" and what we refer to as "flashing" may overlap
>slightly.  We are using different terms for the two because one causes
>a distraction problem which you can allow for a short time as long as
>it stops (or can be stopped) whereas the other is a seizure trigger
>and cannot be allowed or it will cause a seizure.    The seizure would
>occur faster than most users could turn it off.  "Blink" therefore
>refers to slow repeating changes that would distract.     Flash refers
>to changes that could cause a seizure if they were bright enough or
>persisted long enough.    Blinking usually doesn't occur at speeds of
>3 per second or more so blink and flash do not overlap.  However,
>blinking can occur faster than 3 per second so there could be an
>overlap.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 20: extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2290)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>18. [SC 1.2.1] Replace "multimedia alternative to text" with "audio and/or
>video alternative to text" since it is possible to gloss text w/ audio
>only, or w/ silent video only (for instance, sign language) or w/ audio &
>video together (e.g. video of talking head).
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you. Good suggestion.  we have replaced "multimedia alternative
>to text" with "audio and/or video alternative to text"
>
>and fixed the definition to read
>
>*audio and/or video alternative to text*
>     media that presents no more information than is already presented
>in text (directly or via text alternatives)
>
>     Note: an audio and/or video alternative to text is provided for
>those who benefit from alternate representations of text.  Audio
>and/or video alternative to text may be audio-only, video-only
>(including sign-language video), or audio-video.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 21: semantics conveyed through presentation?
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2291)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>19. [SC 1.3.1] Most of us had no idea what this meant, and the few who did
>had difficulty explaining what the practical implications of this would be
>for content development. Do you mean "semantics conveyed through
>presentation?" Or is it the semantics about the relation between objects?
>Either one of these, or both, would be more understandable.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>This success criterion speaks both to semantics conveyed through
>presentation, and semantics about relationships between objects. The
>wording has been carefully worked out to encompass this without being
>overly prescriptive. The Working Group did not arrive at alternate
>language that is more clear. The Understanding document provides more
>detail and examples to clarify the scope of this success criterion.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 22: Which page title?
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2292)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>20. [SC 2.4.2] Do you mean the title tag or the title that goes in the H1?
>Please clarify (even if in some non-HTML specific way).
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>To clarify the expected use of the page title, we have added the
>following to the Intent section:
>
>"User agents make the title of the page easily available to the user
>for identifying the page. For instance, a user agent may display the
>page title in the  window title bar or as the name of the tab
>containing the page."
>
>The sufficient techniques for SC 2.4.2 lists the use of the title
>element in HTML, but not the use of an H1 element. We do not believe
>that the use of an H1 element is sufficient by itself, since the
>heading may not be visible at all times. We have added an advisory
>technique;
>SEE ABOVE
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 23: Please clarify
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2293)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>21. [SC 3.1.4] We debated this but could not agree on a common
>interpretation. Please clarify.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We believe that the definition of mechanism in the glossary and the
>explanation and examples in Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.4 are
>sufficient to understand what kinds of mechanisms might satisfy this
>success criterion. "Mechanism" covers both author-supplied
>functionality and user-agent or assistive-technology supplied
>functionality.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 24: Assistive technology definition
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html
>(Issue ID: 2294)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>22. [gloss-assistivetech] Drop note 1.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Respond with: We received other comments that this note was confusing.
>However, we saw value in the substance of it. Following the
>suggestions of other commentors, we have reworded Notes 1 and 2 to
>read:
>
>The distinction between mainstream user agents and assistive
>technologies is not absolute. Many mainstream user agents provide some
>features to assist individuals with disabilities. The basic difference
>is that mainstream user agents target broad and diverse audiences that
>usually include people with and without disabilities. Assistive
>technologies target narrowly defined populations of users with
>specific disabilities. The assistance provided by an assistive
>technology is more specific and appropriate to the needs of its target
>users. The mainstream user agent may provide important services to
>assistive technologies like retrieving Web content from program
>objects or parsing markup into identifiable bundles.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 23:08:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:46 GMT