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

Re: 5.2

From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:23:20 -0900
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>, john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
CC: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA274E98.2686%dburnett@sesa.org>

To The Group -

I, too, believe that Lisa's comments go beyond "just" the technologies that
are possibly programmed into a web page or an entire site.  I am having a
difficult time trying to figure out the "real" issue.  Lisa, am I wrong in
thinking that you are saying (possibly), some operating platforms/systems
are being ignored when it comes to vendors making accessible
products/agents/technologies for a lesser selling operating system.  If this
is what you are saying, I can tell you, you are 100% correct.  In the early
years of assistive technology, Macintosh was superior with regard to
assistive technology (stuff built into their system and software developers
making AT products for the Mac).  In my humble opinion, I have seen the PC
world jump way ahead of Mac related to accessibility products and supports.
Some vendors are no longer developing multi-platform products, especially
assistive tech products.  Is this what you were talking about?  Thoughts?


Doyle Burnett
Education Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:55:46 -0800
> To: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
> Cc: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, WCAG List
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: 5.2 
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:56:43 -0500 (EST)
> 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 14:23:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:43 UTC