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

Checklists Normative?

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:11:18 -0600
To: 'lisa seeman' <seeman@netvision.net.il>, 'Wendy A Chisholm' <wendy@w3.org>, 'Joe Clark' <joeclark@joeclark.org>, 'WAI-GL' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <0HS200ME9GAU9T@smtp3.doit.wisc.edu>

Hmmmmm

I think "on the platform of the users choice" is too strict and also
undefined.   What if I said I want to use the "GO" os. Or Symbian. 

On the other hand, saying that something is accessible because it will work
on just one OS and with one piece of AT is also not appropriate.

Rather than setting rules like this -- we need to figure out what is "good
enough" and set that as the line.   That will generally need to take place
on the technology specific checklists.  Which is why they may need to be
normative.........

Need to think about this.

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of lisa seeman
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 1:40 AM
To: 'Wendy A Chisholm'; 'Joe Clark'; 'WAI-GL'
Subject: RE: [4.1] Overview and summary of guideline 4.1


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 17:11:25 UTC

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