W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Proposal to address issue of scope of guideline 11

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:32:10 +1000 (AEST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.990615191538.29430B-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Further to Charles' suggestion, perhaps we should say:

If there is at least one free and widely available user agent that runs
under a variety of operating systems and supports language feature X,
where X has an accessibility advantage (E.G. style sheet positioning) and
should therefore be used instead of old solution Y, where Y has a
corresponding disadvantage in terms of accessibility, then authors should
cease using Y in favour of X. Exception: this rule can be violated where X
does not degrade gracefully when processed by user agents that do not
support it.

In previous work, this group has applied an analogous test in deciding
whether authors should be required (at a priority 1 level) to implement a
particular access solution: if there is a widely available multi-platform
user agent which makes this accommodation unnecessary, then it need not be
made, except perhaps as a priority 2 or 3 item. The criterion formulated
above would apply, as one might say, in the reverse direction: if a
certain new language feature has been implemented by at least one widely
available user agent, and degrades gracefully, then it should be deployed
and the kludge or deprecated language feature which it renders obsolete
should accordingly be discarded.
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 1999 05:32:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT