W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Normative status of technology specific checklists

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:47:08 -0500 (CDT)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405271140510.3242-100000@socrates.scdns.net>

> In fact we should note that the success criteria fall into two categories
> 
> 1)  - those that use techniques that depend on special features of User
> Agents (incl AT).

Well, which features are "special"? Ones you have to order as an 
accessory?

Aren't all features simply features?

If IE for Windows (and indeed Mac) gives you no access to long 
descriptions but Mozilla does, is Mozilla offering you a "special" 
feature?

>             - these are usually not visible in the default presentation of
> most browsers

Tooltips aren't visible either-- until you mouse over them. Doesn't that 
qualify?

You could say that about viewing source, too.

>           -  examples - ALT Text, 

Alt text is a replacement by spec.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#adef-alt>

> anything markup based,

Lots of markup results in something "visible in the default presentation 
of most browsers." <h1> is gonna be pretty big in every graphical browser 
from Mosaic to Shiira (which?).

> closed captions

Anything closed is opt-in by definition.


> 2)  - those that are not dependent on special features of User Agents or AT
>           Open captions (where the captions are indelibly part of the image
> and always

Some open captions are dependent on special features of user agents, as 
with forced subtitles under the DVD spec or simple open captions using 
QuickTime's built-in features.

> Each time we change the checklist for Group 1 items - it requires all of
> user agents and/or AT to support this new technique.  

Oh? Where's that requirement listed? UAAG?

> no benefit from the new technique -  AND in fact the content would become
> less accessible since authors can now use the new (unsupported) technique
> instead of the older techniques that were supported.

It doesn't matter much of both techniques are supported by the spec 
(classic example: <img> vs. <object>).


-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2004 12:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT