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

Re: Checkpoint 4.3 action item

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:28:52 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020221162724.0443c630@localhost>
To: Jason White <jasonjgw@pacific.net.au>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: jacobs@w3.org
After the WCAG call last week, I talked with Ian about UAAG.  We discussed avoiding the circular reference to UAAG and  stating a proper conformance claim to UAAG.

He thought we might be able to ask that people only consider guideline 6 of UAAG [1]. this would eliminate the reference to WCAG (which is in UAAG checkpoints 8.1 and 7.3) and it would allow us to create a "conformance profile" which is something that UAAG uses and he suggested we consider for WCAG. He used this phrase on the phone, but I did not see this in a quick skim of UAAG.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/guidelines.html#gl-accessible-interface

One issue is that UAAG considers applets "content" but plug-ins part of the UA. In that case, the accessibility of applets would need to be handled by WCAG.  

I suggest that the success criterion read:
1) any applications with custom interfaces conform to 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

--wendy

At 12:40 AM 2/21/02, you wrote:
>Proposal
>
>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.
>
>
>Query: what is meant by a "custom" interface and should the success
>criterion be restricted, as in the above proposal and the current
>draft, to custom interfaces? 

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium 
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 16:23:06 GMT

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