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

RE: 5.2

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:44:08 -0800
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c2a857$cffc6140$5f814094@rose>

That's a great idea.  How would you propose we do that so people know we
are talking about Mac, Windows, and *nix operating systems?  I would
still see some confusion if we simply stated "on more than one operating
system."  Some might be confused and think we are saying "if Win98 has
it and WinXP has it, then it's okay."

With "independent implementations" backed up by running on two separate
engines then we clear the hurdle.  We do need to explain what an engine
is for those policy makers and designers that don't know the technical

I think this week's discussion on this checkpoint is a perfect example
of how people can become confused and think that it's okay because it
works in JAWS and Window-Eyes.  Those two programs may be created by two
independent companies, but they rely upon the same engine.  Therefore,
they are actually one implementation developed in two different ways
relying, again, upon the same engine.  However, they operate on the same
operating system format which creates the second problem.

This is indeed a sticky issue.  I don't want to block a nice technology.
But, I don't want to see people that don't use Windows facing the
inability to access a site.  As we develop sites we need to develop the
site using a technology supported by more than one operating system or
one user agent engine.

Many people have problems with PDFs and therefore we have the checkpoint
that ensures we provide alternate access to that information.  Although
we have that requirement with other technologies people tend to ignore
that.  The ignoring is increased when a developer uses Flash because
they don't want to go through the woes of developing in HTML as well.
I've developed a Flash site and backed it up by an HTML version as well.
That indeed was a challenge that I'd rather not go through again.  If
anyone would like the reference I will gladly provide it privately.

Lee Roberts
Rose Rock Design, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of john_slatin
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 6:46 AM
To: 'Lisa Seeman'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 5.2

Suggestion: if "idependent implementations" *actually means* "on
different operating systems and/or hardware platforms," then that's what
the checkpoint and the success criterion should say-- flat out, with no
room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.


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
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 11:44:48 UTC

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