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

RE: First draft: proposal for guideline 4.2 level 1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:27:25 -0500
To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000091324232@spamarrest.com>

Good list Jason

I meant - if we didn't change the language.

Thanks for this good list of alternatives to consider for 4.2.  (plus your
extra #6 which I added below.)

Hmmmmm.  The list also highlights some of the issues - so it is good from
that standpoint to 

Thanks


 
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 Jason White
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 9:53 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: First draft: proposal for guideline 4.2 level 1


Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > Actually all of the discussion hinges on the first question.
 > 
 > If there are no user agents that meet then the rest of the analysis
 > collapses.
 > 
Not completely. In these circumstances there are various options (this
entire issue requires discussion with the user agent working group):

1. To specify conformance only to a subset of Level A of UAAG 1.0 as a
   minimum implementation requirement (I have explained earlier in
   this thread why this is problematic).

2. To specify that there need only be a set of user agents which
   together have features that amount to UAAG 1.0 conformance (see
   earlier discussion).

3. To take WCAG 2.0 to last call only when at least one user agent
   conforms to Level A of UAAG, thereby satisfying the dependency.

4. To have no success criteria at level 1 of guideline 4.2. This would
   mean that content developers could use whatever technologies they
   wished in conforming at level 1. I can hear the objections already!

5. To adopt some other minimum implementation and compatibility
   requirement - I think this would essentially be the same as
   choosing a subset of UAAG 1.0, however, and would have the same
   drawbacks.

What have I missed?
6. To require that the technology be implemented by a user agent
   conforming to UAAG 1.0, but to provide an explicit list, in WCAG,
   of technologies that can be reasonably relied upon even if there
   are no UAAG-conforming user agents that implement them. In other
   words there would be a general rule and a list of exceptions built
   into the guidelines. I don't like this solution but I list it here
   for completeness.
Received on Sunday, 12 September 2004 04:27:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC