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: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:59:41 -0600
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B9E5E@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Lee, I'm not sure this will work, but one way to handle it might be to use
the phrase

"... Two or more operating systems" and then use the examples and notes to
clarify:

Example 1: The content can be rendered on Windows, Macintosh, and Linux/UNIX
systems.
Would that work? Or do we run into trouble because Windows and Macintosh are
vendor-specific?

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: Friday, December 20, 2002 12:44 pm
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 5.2



John,
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 stuff.  

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.

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 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

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 14:59:43 GMT

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