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

Re: 5.2

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:55:46 -0800
Message-Id: <200212191855.KAA12862@patagonia>
To: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
cc: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I'm concerned that I think Lisa's request goes beyond this, that it doesn't 
matter how many Assistive Technologies vendors support a technology on 
Windows. As long as AT is only available on Windows, the technology should not 
be considered accessible.

We wrestled a lot with what we wanted this checkpoint to say. It is a very 
difficult issue. Lisa, I assume you are requesting that we re-open the 
discussion.

	Loretta
> 
> 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 13:56:40 GMT

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