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

RE: Problems with guideline 4.1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:46:34 -0500
To: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000034523595@spamarrest.com>

Top posting to facilitate context and access  by people with screen readers
Also to pull new content to top

Hi Jason (again)
Agree with 1 (connect to claim) and 2 (specification must be public)

I think I disagree with 3.  if you have a URI that no one but you can access
then no claim will be made against it - or it doesn't matter.  If it is
rendered before viewing then it passes.  It is what is delivered that is

RE 4 - we continue to battle this one and I don't have a good answer. But I
think we need to put this on our list to have a WG telecon on.  If exposing
structure is required, then is structure required and all other technologies
are not allowed?   Do we not allow technologies that cannot be navigated
well without sight?  Is it just that it should be no harder if you have a
disability (yet we know it will be)?

RE 5 - I disagree.  Conforming to spec is a good thing - but this is only
about access.  It can't be level 2 unless you can show that conformance has
a big increase in accessibiity -- AFTER all of the other guidelines have
already been met.  I don't think it does.  It is good but..  and sometimes
violating spec may make content more accessible.  But doing it while
following spec is even better.  Hence level 3.


 -- ------------------------------ 
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 Jason White
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:38 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Problems with guideline 4.1

Some issues with guideline 4.1:

1. "the site has documented". Where? How? This will probably need to
   be revisited if we adopt the idea of an "authored unit" (or
   similar) in defining the scope of conformance claims.

Proposal: it should be documented in, or linked to, the conformance claim.

2. Suppose the content is written, in part or in whole, in a format
   for which no specification exists. Does this mean it fails
   guideline 4.1? If the specification exists but hasn't been
   published, does this count? If so, how can I ever know whether an
   unpublished specification for a technology I happen to be using,

pROPOSAL: "Specification" means a published specification which is
available to any member of the public for free or at a reasonable cost.

3. Suppose I write my content in an XML format that I have developed,
   but for which I have not written a formal DTD/schema, and details
   of which I haven't published. The content is transformed into a
   number of output formats for various devices and user agents
   according to the delivery context. Have I violated guideline 4.1?

This raises the larger issue of where along the delivery path the
guideline are to be applied. Note that the "authored unit" proposal
doesn't resolve this issue. For example, content written in my
custom-designed XML format is available in that format via a URI -
even if it is a FILE URI on my local filesystem, or perhaps a URI used
by my own software or a third-party gateway to retrieve and transform
the content for delivery to a user agent.

4. "Structural elements and attributes". This is very specific to
   markup languages and looks like an attempt surruptitiously to
   support the HTML techniques without being general enough. What we
   mean is that every feature of the technology is used as specified.
   Even if we do decide to say "structural elements and attributes",
   what of technologies that don't provide elements or attributes? Do
   we say that this requirement is satisfied by default?

The broader issue is that of the assumptions which each success
criteria requires to hold in order for it to be applicable, and how
these should be documented in the guidelines.

5. The level 3 success criteria. These should be at level 2. It seems
   troublesome that a Consortium such as W3C would be asserting, in
   effect, that conformance to specifications without exceptions is a
   level 3 requirement - a really good thing to do, rather than at
   least a level 2 requirement.
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2004 12:46:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC