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

Re: 5.2

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@UBaccess.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:45:16 +0200
To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <00a401c2afcf$038a94e0$7000000a@123>

  Lee wrote: Lisa, are you saying that we need to provide alternative methods at the level one or two success criteria? 

  I think we can not rely on Level three. - so level 1 and 2 have to have enough support. Alternative methods can be at level 3, so long as level 1 and 2 alone give people reasonable accessibility. In other word - so long as we are not requiring the user buy a new computer and/or $500 operating system, configure their system, import their emails and documents to the new operating system, and then buy new assistive technology and other software... all so that they can view your splash welcome page and menu bar. 

  Operating system dependencies should be interoperable. I would take that to level one. 

  But alternative methods for different assistive technologies within an operating system can stay at level 3. (I think)

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Seeman
  Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:22 PM
  To: Lee Roberts; 'John Slatin'; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
  Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject: Re: 5.2

    Two points to consider,

    I think a big part of the picture is comparing non disabled access, with disabled access. If someone wants to develop only for one platform then I think , at least at a P1 level -that that is fine. However is that still OK when the non disabled access is not platform dependent but the accessible access is platform dependent? I think not. Let me give an theoretical example. A site can be viewed on Mac and Windows, however the accessibility is dependent on a windows API so no Mac assistive technology can work with it.

    We do not consider it likely that many people will go to AAA conformance. level 3 criteria will not ensure that no one slips through the loopholes

    Therefore anything that is pivotal to accessibility (and is testable ect..) should not be there.

    I also want to apologize for reopening this discussion. I had not considered the issue of platform dependence, until I was asked to retrofit a platform dependent site.

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Lee Roberts 
      To: 'John Slatin' ; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au 
      Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
      Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 10:29 PM
      Subject: RE: 5.2

      IE5.5 for Windows and IE5.0 for Mac operate with the basically the same
      engine.  Although IE for Mac has been created from the ground up, many
      of the features it supports are IE only features.  I'm not pointing out
      the "skin" or the user-adjustable features - I'm referring to the way IE
      supports JavaScript and XML.  Those two features take us beyond the
      surface of the browser and put us into the supporting engine.  The two
      browsers are only different in the way they handle CSS with IE for Mac
      being much better than IE for Windows.  So, in my opinion they would not
      be separate implementations - rationale: we could say that because IE5.0
      and IE6.0 are so different in how they handle CSS that they are separate
      implementations when they are not separate, but only an improvement on
      the previous version.

      If we go with a focus upon assistive technologies that then causes
      problems for people with other browsers.  As with the javascript
      example, two pages served based upon how the browser identifies itself,
      we still leave out a considerable percentage of individuals that chose
      to not be burdened by the problems of the more common browsers.  As for
      the developer that doesn't have the technologies, a simple visit to a
      library for the blind will help with that issue.  Additionally, I refer
      to friends and usenet groups on a lot of things that I can't check
      because I have a small shop and don't have the money to spend on all the
      technologies.  I feel that if I can do this then so can the other

      Robust would refer more directly to the technologies used to provide the
      content.  While the technology may work in one browser, user agent, or
      assistive technology, that technology may not be operable in another
      browser, user agent, or assistive technology.  I perceive our goal here
      as ensuring that the technology used works in more than one user agent
      and assistive technology as Guideline 5 directs.  This would remove the
      possibility of misunderstanding leading to people considering Internet
      Explorer, Netscape, or Opera as assistive technologies.

      At this point, I'm proposing we add a level 3 success criteria of: "An
      alternate method of providing the content be used for browsers, user
      agents, and assistive technologies that can not support the technologies
      required."  This will ensure that no one slips through the loopholes we
      may have inadvertently left open due to short-sightedness or
      improvements in one technology over another.


      John Slatin's Questions:
      What Jason writes (see below) prompts another pair of questions:

      1. What constitutes an "implementation" in the sense of the term as used
      here? Is IE 5.5 for Windows a *different* implementation than IE 5.0 for
      Macintosh?  If I understand Lee correctly, he would say "No-- these are
      merely two instantiations of the same implementation."  But I'm not sure
      whether Jason would agree-- and I'm not sure where I stand either, given
      the amount of time Web developers have to spend to ensure that their
      content works correctly on both Windows and Mac.

      2. If "interoperable" means, in essence, that mainstream technologies
      "used by the content" must be compatible with assistive technologies
      used by people with disabilities, (a) can we say that in some reasonably
      concrete form instead of using such high-level abstractions? and (b) how
      can Joe and Josephine Web Developer know if they meet this criterion if
      they don't have access to a wide variety of assistive technologies?

      A third question just popped into my head: are we engaging in circular
      reasoning in the way we talk about interoperability here? It's my
      understanding that "Robust" (our keyword for the principle expressed by
      Guideline 5) might be translated as "Interoperable."  If that's correct,
      then we can't use the word "interoperable" in checkpoints or success
      criteria whose purpose is to define what "interoperable" means.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
      To: "John Slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
      Cc: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
      Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 6:34 PM
      Subject: Re: 5.2

      > John Slatin writes:
      >  >
      >  > Here's a slight reworking that does little more than simplify the
      >  > == John's reworking of Jason's text==
      > This is good. My original wording wasn't, in any case, intended as a
      >   proposal for inclusion in a draft but only as initial text for
      >   the purposes of mailing list discussion.
      >  >
      >  > Questions:
      >  > What does "interoperable" mean in the sentence "There exist 
      > multiple,  > independent, and interoperable implementations of the 
      > technologies used
      >  > the content"?
      > I don't know whether the W3C has a standard definition of the term, 
      > but essentially it means that there are no problems of conformance of 
      > the different implementations to the specification that would give 
      > rise to compatibility problems.  >
      >  > Does content meet 5.2 if it works in Internet Explorer on both
      >  > Macintosh but not in Netscape/Mozilla?
      > 5.2 is concerned with the technologies used by the content, not with
      >   the content itself. Thus the question at level 2, as currently
      >   proposed, is not whether the content
      >   "works" with different implementations, but whether it uses
      >   technologies that are supported by multiple implementations. If
      >   content used technologies in such a way that it would only "work"
      >   with one implementation then it wouldn't meet the proposed level 2
      >   success criterion. What is excluded is the situation in which the
      >   content is functional only with implementation x, whatever it may
      >   be.
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 01:46:42 UTC

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