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

RE: 5.2

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:38:50 -0600
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B9E4D@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I'm not sure I understand this, Lee.  JAWS 4.5 supports Flash MX through
MSAA; so does Window-Eyes, a competing product.  Flash MX includes features
designed to support accessibility.  Are you saying that a developer who uses
Flash MX cannot make a conformance claim even if the Flash content is
accessible to people who are using both Window-Eyes and JAWS?

If this is in fact what we're saying, it worries me-- it sounds like we
might be raising the bar to an impossible height.

John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station G9600
FAC 248C
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:18 pm
To: WCAG List
Subject: RE: 5.2



The reasoning for two independent implementations was to limit the concept
that one group would benefit while another would not.  At least that was my
goal when Jason and I proposed this wording.

There was to be included a segment that stated that no one could claim an
accessible status if they required tools that were built upon the same
engine.  Therefore, any tool using the Internet Explorer engine would have
to be considered when the other tool used the same engine.  

It was also pointed out that there is only one user agent that supports the
MSAA required by Flash MX.  I believe that was Window-Eyes. Therefore, any
site that wanted to claim an accessible status using Flash MX would not be
able to do such.  At least until another user agent provided the access for
Flash MX and did not require the MSAA or the Internet Explorer engine.

(NOTE: not trying to pick on Flash)

Sincerely,
Lee Roberts
President/CEO
405-321-6372
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
http://www.roserockdesign.com
 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:53 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 5.2






A few clarifications:
I am referring to 5.2 in http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

checkpoint 5.2 reads:
Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are declared and widely
available.

success criteria level two reads:
Technologies and features on the required list are available in at least two
independently-developed implementations.


Now what is happening is people are claiming accessibility based on
technologies that can only be used on the windows/intel platform, and
assistive technologies that do not run on window, can not, with all the will
in the world, provide support.

  I see a big difference hear between developing based on a free download,
or even a none non-free application, and developing for, say, only IBM with
windows. (hay I use IBM and windows, but that is not the
point)

Part of the difference is that the user can get a new user agent a lot easer
then he can sell his mac and buy an IBM.
  But the BIG  difference  is that developers of assistive technology for
other  platforms are barred from developing support. The do not have the
API's. They can not do it.

It seems to me that this allows potential monopolies, and such games to be
played in the assistive technology/platform market.

I think that it is  the disabled who will pay the price.

Any standard that are relied on for fulfillment of these guidelines must be
open and usable on more then one, independently owned,  platform.

Lisa
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 13:38:53 GMT

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