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 11:35:56 -0900
To: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Lisa Seeman'" <Lisa@UBaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA28B11B.26A9%dburnett@sesa.org>

John and the Group -

First off, I hope my comments are not coming off as critical - far from my
intention by all means.  But, I really do think that some of our writing is
well beyond that of our potential readership.  And, it is mostly terminology
(as John states) and yes, there is a glossary that can help explain the
terms more simply. 

Like John, I do a lot of training in the area of web site accessibility and
can say, as much as anything, the educating of others will help solve a good
many barriers.  Most web developers do NOT even know that there are problems
related to access within the disability community.  In fact, most web
developers might even be surprised that a blind individual could access the
web in the first place.  Generally, I find that people say to me, "Wow, I
didn't even think about that" when we discuss or bring up a particular
barrier to access. 

Another problem is that of available tools that allow a developer to realize
they are missing an accessibility issue before they have to run an
evaluation tool (or evaluate manually - which I am not sure many developers
can do in the first place).  Some development tools, Hot Metal Pro, for
example, prompt the developer as he/she develops the web page/site.  Some
tools do not as a default place a DOC-TYPE within the HTML so these pages,
for one reason or another cannot be parsed by web crawlers and worse yet
some assistive technology.  But, again, the web developer probably does NOT
even realize this is an issue.  Essentially, well meaning people not knowing
and they would have done it different had they known.  At least this has
been my experience.  So the education and outreach group can really help
with respect to these issues - I think.

Doyle


-- 
Doyle Burnett
Education Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program


907-562-7372
> From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:49:47 -0600
> To: "'Doyle'" <dburnett@sesa.org>, john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>,
> "'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 14:49:52 -0500 (EST)
> 
> 
> Doyle raises a good point about the audience for WCAG including Web
> developers who don't know much HTML (or other tech stuff).  This is similar
> to a question Bob Regan raised a few weeks ago in his comments.
> 
> This past Tuesday I did a workshop for 20 people on our General Libraries
> staff who create or maintain Web pages.  There was one person in the group
> who didn't know what the term "ALT text" , and there were four people who
> didn't know what an image map was.  That is, they didn't know the terms--
> when I provided definitions all of them were familiar with these things.
> 
> Yesterday, in another workshop which also included a number of people from
> the General Libraries, I learned that basically everyone on the Libraries'
> professional staff does at lesat some Web publishing.  There's a very wide
> range of knowledge and skill in that group.I suspect that it's fairly
> representative.
> 
> John
> 
> meant
> 
> 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: Doyle [mailto:dburnett@sesa.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 11:52 am
> To: john_slatin; 'Lisa Seeman'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 5.2
> 
> 
> 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 15:35:58 GMT

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