W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

FW: Conclusions from Discussion today

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:29:52 -0600
To: "'GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701c1b64e$c22d7d70$da17a8c0@laptop600>


Conclusions from Discussion yesterday's teleconf call....

------------------------
1)   4.1 should be made advisory because either[GV Start:] :
    a) it means that you can't use any technologies that don’t meet them
all
(which is not possible)
  OR
b) that you must use at least some technology that would allow you in
the future to comply (which is always true - since you can serve
alternate content
  OR
c) it means that you must comply with the guidelines -- which is
circular.

So it was felt it didn’t make sense as a checkpoint -- but we did want
to draw attention to the fact that selecting the technologies was
important to making things accessible -- therefore it was made into an
advisory.

------------------------
 2) in the discussion it was pointed out that S-1 contained much
important information in the regard, and was also not reflected in the
guidelines.   The a new guideline (labeled checkpoint 4.S.1 for
discussion was crafted after the meeting based on meeting discussions
and Is posted separately. 

------------------------
3)  Regarding 4.3

a)  it was pointed out that "compatible with AT" was undefined.   What
AT?  All AT?  
b)  what did "device-independent access to functionality"  mean exactly

It was felt that 4.3 was captured in the second of its success criteria.
A new version of it might look like


Checkpoint 4.3   Design user interfaces to be accessible or to provide
an accessible alternative.

Success criteria 
1) any applications with custom interfaces conform to at least Level A
of UAAG 1.0. If the application cannot be made accessible, an
alternative accessible solution is provided.

1) any applications with custom interfaces conform to [Part of?  All of
?] UAAG 1.0. If the application cannot be made accessible, an
alternative accessible solution is provided.  

Issues: 
1. we need to avoid circular references to WCAG that are in UAAG 1.0
checkpoints 8.1 and 7.3. 2. Conformance to UAAG 1.0 [1]  is more than
Level A, AA, or AAA.  We can define a conformance profile that might be
based only on guideline 6, for example.  How this conformance claim
would be made needs more work. 3. UAAG considers applets "content" and
thus covered by WCAG.  This is another spot for a possible circular
reference. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/conformance.html#Conformance








Gregg



-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. 
Director - Trace R & D Center 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> 
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 13:30:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT