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

Re: Checkpoint 4.4 Review

From: <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 01:53:44 -0800 (PST)
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020224015346.23134.c000-h003.c000.wm@mail.accease.com.criticalpath.net>
Hi
For clarification, the quote attributed for me was
actually from Gregg.
My thoughts on this possibility were given in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JanMar/0360.html

Cheers
Graham

On Wed, 20 February 2002, Jason White wrote

> 
> goliver@accease.com writes:
>  > 
>  > Checkpoint 4.4   Ensure that all content is
readable
>  > and all function (other than artistic) is preserved
>  > when stylistic and scripting technologies are not
>  > supported or are turned off.   
> 
> Unfortunately this formulation is open to various
objections which
> have been raised previously, including:
> 
> 1. If my user agent displays XML (not XHTML, SVG
etc.) documents as
>    plain text when style sheets are turned off, does
this qualify as
>    being "readable" for purposes of the above
proposal? To me,
>    perhaps, but to the typical reader, it is surely
not so. XML
>    documents cannot, in general, meaningfully be
displayed without
>    style sheets.
> 
> 2. This brings us to a related point: what is a
"plug-in"? If the user
>    agent is modularized sufficiently then the
distinction between the
>    "core" user agent and optional components
disappears: all that one
>    has is a number of modules, any combination of
which may or may not
>    be present due to choices made during installation
or subsequent
>    software upgrades, etc. Who is to say which
features are optional,
>    and which others not?
> 
> 3. This checkpoint would appear to preclude reliance
on technologies
>    which are regarded as optional. However, it has
been strongly
>    argued by some members of this working group that
developers should
>    have freedom to choose any implementation
technology which is, in
>    principle, compatible with assistive technologies,
and that the
>    extent to which they make allowance for backward
compatibility
>    should be reflected in the nature of their
conformance claim. This
>    position emerged clearly in last week's meeting
and needs to be
>    developed further; its merits and drawbacks ought
to be examined.
> 
> Perhaps backward compatibility could be expressed as
its own
> checkpoint, along the following lines:
> 
> Avoid or provide alternatives to content that relies
on technologies
> which are not supported by a variety of widely
available user agents and assistive
> technologies, including internationalized and
localized versions
> thereof.
> 
> Of course we would need a definition of "widely
available" and
> probably also some statistics regarding actual use,
if such a
> checkpoint were to be made viable. Some success
criteria might be as
> follows:
> 
> 1. The technologies on which the content, or an
alternative versions
>    thereof, relies:
> 
> a. have been available in at least three independent
user agent
> implementations for a period of at least four years.
> 
> b. have been supported by at least three relevant
assistive
> technology implementations for a period of at least
three years. Where
> specific support from assistive technologies (e.g.
on-screen
> keyboards, screen readers, screen magnifiers, voice
browsers etc.) is
> not required in order for the implementation
technologies under
> consideration to be accessible,
> this success criterion is inapplicable.
> 
> c. there exist internationalized and/or localized
versions of such
> user agent and assistive technology implementations.
(This needs more
> work - how many are required?)
> 
> In conclusion I wish to state a disclaimer: I do not
necessarily
> support the inclusion of any such checkpoint in the
guidelines; but it
> appears to be the essence of what some people have
been arguing for in
> connection with the "baseline capabilities" topic
which, as Charles
> noted, is intimately connected with what has become
checkpoint 4.4.

AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
Phone : +64 9 846 6995
Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2002 04:54:18 GMT

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