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

Re: 5.2

From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:51:32 -0900
To: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Lisa Seeman'" <Lisa@UBaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA288A94.26A0%dburnett@sesa.org>

To The Group -

I believe to NOT say, we are talking about independent operating systems
(different companies) would be to somehow, potentially, mislead the reader.
So, I agree with John.

Some of the checkpoints are way too difficult for some to understand.  I
know we have talked about retaining the technical aspect but we really need
to consider the notion that not all web developers are going to get it!  For
me, I was confused with 5.2 as I, too, was wondering if it meant that 98 and
XP would be considered two different implementations.  That had me wondering
about the non-Microsoft platforms and what all that meant.  Were we leaving
them in the dust?  Of course, the other platform developers have some
obligations (I think) as well.

I am glad we are having this discussion.  Sometimes, I get concerned that
only those of us who were developing web sites using "text editors" and
limited development tools will really understand many of the checkpoints.
Many web development tools basically sell their products by saying things
like, No knowledge of HTML needed to develop great web sites.

The techniques sections will help but I still think that some (if not many)
are not going to have a clue.

Just my thoughts

Doyle 
 
 
-- 
Doyle Burnett
Education Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
907-562-7372
> From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 08:45:33 -0600
> To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <Lisa@UBaccess.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: 5.2
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:45:41 -0500 (EST)
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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: Lisa Seeman [mailto:Lisa@UBaccess.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:14 pm
> 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
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doyle" <dburnett@sesa.org>
> To: "Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)"
> <Lisa@UBaccess.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: 5.2
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 Friday, 20 December 2002 12:51:39 GMT

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