W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Client-side software requirements

From: by way of Wendy A Chisholm <jasonjgw@pacific.net.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:17:10 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011029141703.027b36d0@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Jim Ley writes:
 > I was trying to think wider than just SVG and 3.4, what level of
 > plug-in/non "standard" equipment[1] is an author allowed to use to fulfil
 > a requirement, users should go some way (and most do of course), so is it
 > okay to require a plug-in?  and if so, any plug-in, free plug-ins only,
 > free but on restricted platform/O/S? - What is reasonable?  - I'm not
 > sure.  I think users have to have some responsibility, and if they can
 > install a plug-in at low cost, then that should be an ok (minimum you can
 > do), but not recommended way of fulfilling the requirement.

When we last engaged in this discussion, there seemed to be some
measure of agreement that the guidelines ought not to prescribe which
technologies authors should and shouldn't use, except in those cases
where it is not possible to employ a certain technology in an
accessible manner. The argument was, as I recall, that if we were to
make such prescriptions, they would be at best ignored by developers,
and at worst counter-productive.

I don't think this amounted to a consensus position, and the issues
related to user agent support are very complex. The suggested approach
was to provide information regarding how to use various technologies
in an accessible manner, and to include, where available, details of
any implementation issues or other factors that might make the
required degree of support unavailable to certain users, leaving it
ultimately to the author (and, realistically, regulatory bodies) to
strike an appropriate policy balance. 
Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 14:12:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT