W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

TR Checkpoint 5.3

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:05:07 -0800
To: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003901c2c669$52381cb0$5f814094@rose>
Comment #1
Ian
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0020.html>
Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002
The provisions of this checkpoint are not verifiable. Instead, these
design goals are XAG design goals and should be manifest in that
specification (though in more concrete terms). Perhaps this is the
checkpoint that should read "Use formats that conform to XAG."

Proposal:
Based upon what we have in Level 1 of Checkpoint 5.3 (as noted below),
the requirements seem adequate and are verifiable.  XML is only one
language and not an all encompassing technology/language.  However, we
could add a requirement that the XAG be referenced when dealing with XML
(as noted below).  I've discovered many people that were unaware XML had
an Accessibility Guideline of its own.
1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen: 

*	support device independence
*	include accessibility features
*	have publicly documented interfaces for interoperability
*	make use of operating system accessibility features (either
directly or via the user agent) supported by assistive technologies in
the natural language(s) of the content
*	are implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural
language(s) of the content
*	(note: added) XML documents must comply with the XML
Accessibility Guidelines.

=====================
 
Comment #2
Sun
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0111.html>
(via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002
How about, "Choose technologies that programmatically support, expose,
and make possible building content that meets the WCAG." Although, it is
hard to tell exactly what this checkpoint applies to. Perhaps it would
be better to put the jist of this feedback (structure and content must
be programmatically available to an AT) into Guideline 5's wording or
into 5.1 or 5.4
 
Proposal:
Current:  Choose technologies that are designed to support
accessibility.
Sun's recommendation seems extremely viable and more directly approaches
the issues at hand.  
 
=====================
 
Comment #3
IBM
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html>
(via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002
This is an important consideration but should not be a checkpoint. If
you meet all the checkpoints, then you have obviously done this. If you
haven't, then what difference does this make?
 
Proposal:
Remove Checkpoint 5.3 since it is covered by 5.2 and 5.4.  Add "XML
documents must comply with the XML Accessibility Guidelines." to 5.4 if
5.3 is removed for redundancy.  Additionally, add "Choose technologies
that programmatically support, expose, and make possible building
accessible content through accessible API's and/or operating system
accessibility features." to 5.4.  Or, add "Choose technologies that
programmatically support, expose, and make possible building content
through accessible API's and/or operating system accessibility features
and support backward compatibility." to 5.2.
 
=====================
 
Comment #4
SAP
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0130.html>
(via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 

1.	The baseline AT needs to be defined. Otherwise it's too
difficult to figure out which AT to support.
2.	minimum level #1 subpoint #3: Not sure what this means. What are
publicly documented interfaces?
3.	minimum level #1 subpoint #5: Not sure what this means. Please
clarify.

Proposal:
1.  This comment appears to be more related to 5.2 than 5.3.  5.3 has no
requirement for baseline AT needs.  5.2, on the other hand, does have a
requirement for baseline AT needs.
 
2.  Publicly documented interfaces should be resolved with the comment
from Sun.
 
3.  "are implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural
language(s) of the content" this can be confusing.  However, "required
technologies are supported by the user agents in the natural language of
the content" may seem a little clearer.  Perhaps even an example of
would suffice (not sure what a viable example would be).
 
 
Sincerely,
Lee Roberts
President/CEO
405-321-6372
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
http://www.roserockdesign.com
 

 
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 18:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT