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

RE: Redraft of 5.3

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:09:04 -0600
To: "'Cynthia Shelly (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)'" <cyns@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <005801c2e60a$c7e6fa60$046fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
Comments below marked  GV:   

 

Gregg

 

 -- ------------------------------ 

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.

Director - Trace R & D Center 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 

Checkpoint 5.3 Choose technologies that are designed to support
accessibility.

 

Success criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at the Minimum Level if:

 

1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen

         a). allows the author/programmer to meet the other requirements of 

these guidelines.  For example, the technology supports device independent 

event handling and has a mechanism for specifying text equivalents.

GV:  I think in we need to limit the above statement to the same level as we
are discussing.  That is, "I have chosen a technology that allows me to meet
Level 1 requirements"   for level 1a statement. 

That is - It should say 

"allows the author/programmer to meet the other level 1 requirements of
these guidelines."

  

         b) provides a mechanism for the author/programmer to make use of 

the accessibility interfaces of the host operating system.  This may be 

done via a user agent.

 

 

         c) has publicly documented interfaces for interoperability

GV:  "Publicly documented" interfaces are not actually sufficient or useful
if the APIs or Interfaces do not w9rinwtsupported by AT.  I don't think we
should require this at level 1.    If I make an obscure interface and
publish the interface or an API for it on my website I would comply even
though the interface was completely inaccessible.

 

         d) is implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural 

language of the content

GV:  I don't understand   d)

 

         e) interoperates with assistive technologies in the natural 

language(s) of the content.  This may be achieved by use of accessibility 

interfaces in the host operating system.

 

GV:    e) I think this requires that the authors know what the Assistive
Technologies are.   Not really practical for most programmers I don't
think..

 

 

 

2) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to 

definition] meets UAAG at (insert level)

 

GV:  

Doesn't this require that the author knows what user agent the person will
be using?    Often they will not.  Perhaps if it said.

 

At least one common user agent (or a user agent with a link on this page)
exists that meets UAAG.

 

 

 

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 2 if:

 

1) the technology or combination of technologies chosen allows the 

author/programmer to specify what data is to be passed through to the 

operating system accessibility interfaces

 

GV: Many people won't know what this means. Yet it is required for level one
conformance.

 

2) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to 

definition] meets UAAG at (insert level)

GV:  How will they know what user agent is being used?   Oh, you mean
technologies that only have one user agent? 

 

I guess we could use the following again.

At least one common user agent (or a user agent with a link on this page)
exists that meets UAAG.

 

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 3 if:

 

1) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to 

definition] meets UAAG at (insert level)

 

GV:  I don't understand why the same things show up at multiple levels?  Am
I missing something?

 

The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this 

particular dimension:

(presently no additional criteria for this level.)

 

Benefits (informative)

Authors who utilize technologies designed to support accessibility will:

encounter fewer challenges when implementing these guidelines

avoid the need to create custom solutions and workarounds to address 

accessibility concerns

avoid the need to provide accessible alternate versions for content 

rendered in a technology that does not fully address these guidelines

 
Received on Sunday, 9 March 2003 02:09:13 GMT

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