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

Re: 5.2

From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:08:03 -0900
To: "Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)" <Lisa@UBaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA25EB73.265E%dburnett@sesa.org>

Hi Lisa and Group -

Are you (Lisa) referring to Checkpoint 5.2 that reads, "Design for backward
compatibility"?  Have you paraphrased the wording?  I am a little confused
but what else is new!

In response to your comments about varying (different) operating systems, I
have some concerns as you do but also feel that we cannot easily control all
the possible scenarios.  For example, if a web author/designer developed a
site that was accessible via, let's say, Internet Explorer (Microsoft) and
someone using JAWS (as an example) could access the site - the site is
accessible to that particular user. Now, let's say someone is using Mystery
OS 105.3 (a pretend operating system) and Internet Explorer and they can
visually access the same site as per above but there is no screen reader for
the operating system (Mystery 105.3). Is this site now considered to be
inaccessible?  Is this the concern that you posed to the group?

If this is the concern (or at least is part of the concern) then we have
some real life issues and a lot of not so friendly cross-platform operating
system barriers in our way of achieving universal accessibility.  It seems
that the question, as posed, crosses over into the user agent group and
maybe deeper than that alone.  Guess my main question is - did I understand
at least in part what you were getting at?

My question is this:  Where does the responsibility lie when it comes to
developing applications for one platform or another that would (if
developed) make web pages accessible on all presently available (and,
ideally future) platforms?  In my mind, this is a very difficult question to
even start to respond to and I am not sure that it's even close to where you
were coming from.  But, there are so many "real life" scenarios that fall
into this particular void.  I'd be very interested to hear responses from
others.  Lisa, thanks for your post - if I got it right, an interesting set
of questions.

Doyle Burnett

-- 
Doyle Burnett
Education Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
907-562-7372
> From: Lisa Seeman <Lisa@UBaccess.com> (by way of Wendy A Chisholm
> <wendy@w3.org>)
> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:03:18 -0500
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: 5.2
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:58:24 -0500 (EST)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a concern, with  Checkpoint 5.2 -  Ensure that technologies relied
> upon by the content are declared and widely available.
> 
> The success criteria makes no mention of technologies that can only be used
> on specific operating systems.
> 
> At present we require that technologies and features on the required list
> are available in at least two independently-developed implementations. But
> no mention of weather it is possible to develop applications for other
> platforms.
> 
> What if they are only supportable one a specific platform? In other works if
> a web author choses to use a  technologies  that can only be accessible on
> Lynix or can only be accessible to user agents run on Microsoft - surely
> that can not be considered accessible.
> This is even more the case when the operating system required is not free.
> It must be an undue burden on the end user to expect  him/her to buy a new
> operating system to view your site
> 
> I recommend that all  technologies  should be supportable on any operating
> system, and that that should be a level one requirement.
> 
> Should we also specify that  the independently-developed implementations are
> not themselves dependent on the same proprietary , restricted (non-free)
> components?
> 
> all the best
> 
> Lisa 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 13:07:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT