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

RE: [2.1] Conformance if no device with keyboard exists

From: Yvette P. Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:37:27 +0100
To: "'Doyle Burnett'" <dburnett@sesa.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1AUXZ0-0005Yk-Ge@smtp5.home.nl>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doyle Burnett
> Sent: donderdag 11 december 2003 21:10
> To: Yvette P. Hoitink; W3C Web Content
> Subject: Re: [2.1] Conformance if no device with keyboard exists
> 
> 
> Hi Yvette -
> 
> I am now really confused - what else is new.
> 
> In my read and from previous discussions I think "we" are 
> saying that content (at a minimum) must be operable via the 
> use of a keyboard or its assistive technology (AT) equivalent 
> (alternative keyboard interface).

I agree with you so far. 

> 
> If someone has developed an alternative keyboard (assistive 
> technology device such as Intellikeys, for example) an author 
> would not have to know such a device existed so long as their 
> web content was operable via a keyboard or its equivalent and 
> the information it puts out. I think when we talk about a 
> keyboard, we are talking about the functions of the keyboard 
> (the information sent to the computer) and not what we 
> envision when we look at a keyboard.  

The last example says "If it's written to work with devices that do not have
keyboards and it can not be used by any other devices that do have
keyboards, then it does not conform." 

To me the sentence means that if you develop content specifically for
devices that have no keyboard, you cannot conform to WCAG. Because of your
answer, I can see that my interpretation is probably not the way it was
meant. Your interpretation makes a lot more sense :-) But if I interpret it
like this, perhaps other people will as well. 

There is no plain language rewrite of these examples yet, but I think it
would be wise to get rid of the ambiguity of the current wording since you
and I have totally different interpretations of the same example...

Yvette Hoitink
CEO Heritas, Enschede, The Netherlands
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2003 15:40:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT