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

Re: 5.2

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@UBaccess.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:59:28 +0200
To: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <013101c2b0a2$8b6a8680$7000000a@123>
Messagecomments in line 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lee Roberts 
  To: 'John Slatin' 
  Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 8:58 AM
  Subject: RE: 5.2

  Let's see if we can merge John, Lisa, and Roberto's questions into a cohesive set.

  Roberto questions whether Win98/2000/Xp would be considered multiple operating systems.  .......
  In our case with 5.2 an operating system is best explained as either Microsoft, Macintosh, Unix, or one of the many other proprietary disk operating systems used in computers today.
  Lisa:  we typically address this by saying "independent operating system" 

  As for Lisa's suggestion to move interoperability to the level one success criteria, that can probably be best replied to with the fact that if we did that then no one would ever meet level one requirements.  
  Lisa: I do not understand this comment, most sites are biased on W3C technologies that are interoperible - like html, CSS, XHTML and XML (see Wendy's statistics page). They will not have any problem with this at all. 
  Also, I said support accross operating system should be level 1.  technologies like PDF is supported across multiple operating system platforms. My only issue is with  operating system specific solutions

  To grow on John's suggested text and the current 5.2 level two success criteria let me propose this:
    a.. Technologies and features on the required list used to present the content meet the following requirements: 
      a.. supported in multiple, independently-developed implementations of the browsers, user agents, and assistive technologies. 
      b.. supported across multiple operating system platforms (i.e., Microsoft, Macintosh, or Unix - not Win98/2000/XP)
    b.. of at least two such implementations, it is true that the technologies and features on the required list have been supported by at least one prior version of the software. (NOTE: this will slow down the progress to newer technologies because the previous version may not have supported the newer technology -- this in itself is a good factor to consider and why this text was proposed, because assistive technologies are slower to move forward and people may not have the funds to cover new upgrades.)
  I hope this helps.

  Donna Hamilton
  Personal Assistant for Lee Roberts
  Rose Rock Design, Inc.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: John Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu] 
  Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:56 AM
  To: Lee Roberts; 'Lisa Seeman'
  Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject: Re: 5.2

        Sorry to be so thick-headed, but I need clarification again: how does our discussion of 5.2 relate to Web *content*?  I'm asking this question in hopes of finding a better way to help Web authors who read our guidelines understand what they're supposed to do.  In other words, can we phrase the success criterion so as to place stronger emphasis on content?

    For example:
    "The content uses technologies, including assistive technologies,  that are available in multiple implementations for different operating systems."

    Would this come close?

Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 03:00:55 UTC

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