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: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:10:33 -0600
Message-ID: <008701c2aebd$f302e3a0$0201a8c0@navanax.org>
To: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Whew! Jason, Lee, thanks so much for working so hard on this-- but I'm
afraid I can't agree that Jason's wording eliminates confusion.

Yes, Jason's wording is far more precise than mine, and therefore very
useful.  But it's so highly technical that it will be incomprehensible to
most readers of WCAG 2.0, and will cause consternation and despair.

To meet the needs of our readers, we should try to write in the spirit of
4.1.  Having said that, however, I don't think I have the technical
knowledge to paraphrase Jason's text accurately.

John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:51 AM
Subject: RE: 5.2


>
> Jason White writes:
> "I think the simplest and most accurate mode of expression is to say
> that there exist multiple, independent and interoperable implementations
> of the technologies (i.e., formats, protocols, API's etc.) used by the
> content."
>
> I concur with this thought.
>
> Should we say:
> The content must be supported by multiple, independent, and
> interoperable implementations of the technologies (i.e., formats,
> protocols, API's, etc.) required for the content.
>
> Using the above terminology removes the possible confusion that a screen
> reader like JAWS or Window Eyes would be counted as two independent
> implementations.  For both of them to work they require the MSAA, that
> in itself would be counted as one API.
>
> Sincerely,
> Lee Roberts
> President/CEO
> 405-321-6372
> Rose Rock Design, Inc.
> http://www.roserockdesign.com
>
Received on Sunday, 29 December 2002 01:17:56 GMT

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