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

RE: [4.1] Overview and summary of guideline 4.1

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:39:37 +0200
To: 'Wendy A Chisholm' <wendy@w3.org>, 'Joe Clark' <joeclark@joeclark.org>, 'WAI-GL' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <001101c3e316$6f192390$340aa8c0@patirsrv.patir.com>

There is one big catch, is that the proprietary technology needs to meet
WCAG 2.0 on _the platform of the users choice_. 

When a proprietary technology allows you to meet WCAG but only for users
on using a given operating system (say you have to be on Windows) then
the effect is a lot less accessible then the page was WCAG conformant
using a W3C technology.

Also note that in poorer countries free platforms (read Lynix)are
starting to take off in schools ect. It seems a bit limiting that to
read a website you may need an expensive operating system.

Side note: Someone needs to create an open rapper for API's to the
operating system and platform. I am not sure though that it is the
WAI...


All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:04 AM
> To: Joe Clark; WAI-GL
> Subject: Re: [4.1] Overview and summary of guideline 4.1
> 
> 
> 
> At 06:49 PM 1/20/2004, Joe Clark wrote:
> >Yvette Hoitink wrote:
> >>  Applicability to non-W3C technologies
> >>
> >>...Do we allow the use of proprietary technologies?
> >
> >WAI needs to resolve that issue quickly, if only because PDF 
> and Flash 
> >are
> >two non-W3C formats with accessibility built in. (There are 
> lots of those. 
> >DVD, for example.) WAI has flirted with these dangerous and alien 
> >technologies before in its guidelines:
> >
> ><http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG-PDF-TECHS-20010913/Overview.html>
> >PDF Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 and 2.0
> >
> >I know that document is orphaned, but it's important for WAI 
> to decide 
> >if
> >it's going to publish accessibility guidelines for other 
> formats. *I* 
> >think it should.
> 
> There are two issues:
> 1. Allowing an author using non-W3C technologies to claim 
> conformance to 
> WCAG 2.0
> 2. Publishing techniques for non-W3C technologies
> 
> WRT 1 - We encourage authors to make accessible content and 
> we encourage 
> technology developers to build accessibility features into their 
> technology.  If a technology can be used to meet WCAG 2.0, it 
> should not 
> matter who designed the technology.
> 
> WRT 2 -  Because we are a vendor-neutral organization, the 
> W3C/WAI will 
> only publish techniques for open specifications that are 
> produced by a 
> consortium.  The scope of our charter says, "Develop techniques for 
> implementing the WCAG 2.0 in W3C Recommendations (such as 
> XHTML, SMIL, SVG, 
> and MathML) as well as ECMAScript." [1] The WCAG WG is not likely to 
> address *all* W3C technologies and we encourage other W3C 
> Working Groups to 
> write authoring techniques for their specifications (some groups have 
> expressed interest in doing this).  The WCAG WG (in 
> coordination with the 
> I18N WG) provides a schema, data and transformations [2] that 
> may be used 
> to produce techniques documents. It is my understanding that 
> Adobe and 
> Macromedia plan to publish techniques documents for PDF and Flash 
> (respectively).
> 
> --wendy
> 
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/2003/08/wcag-charter.html#scope>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20.html#techs>
> 
> -- 
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> /-- 
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2004 02:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:54 UTC