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

RE: Conformance Section wtih Edits incorporated

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:20:57 -0600
To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000162102235@spamarrest.com>

Yes
 That is what was intended by the proposal.  Most people can only access the
default version. They don't know how to invoke special style sheets or make
special settings.  Having a more accessible version that you have to have a
special setting to get at - would make it inaccessible to most people.  

As we mentioned - there may be many other settings that would be less
accessible to some but more accessible to people with a particular type of
disability.   But the rating for the site or for the page or for the content
should be the rating for the content as it would be received by most people
when they come to the site. 

Perhaps someday user agents will be trivial to set to 'accessibility' mode
-- or they could all have a big "access" icon on the default set of user
buttons that would turn on the 'negotiate for accessible content'.  I don't
think this will happen but there is always a chance.   If there was a
reasonable chance then perhaps we should find some language to allow this
type of behavior.....  But since it isn't part of UAAG 1.0.  and Since we
are using UAAG 1.0 as our 'baseline' assumption...   I guess we shouldn't
make such an assumption. 

Hmmmmmm.  

 
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: Sunday, November 14, 2004 9:02 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: Conformance Section wtih Edits incorporated


Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > OK
 > Then my edit would be
 > 
 > If multiple formats can be retrieved from a URL through content
negotiation,
 > then the conformance claim would be for the form that is returned when no
 > negotiation is conducted (unless the server returns an error for that
 > condition).   
 > 

This is interesting. If there is a default version and it conforms, for
example, at Level A, but other versions obtainable subject to
negotiation conform at level AA or AAA, then can the conformance claim
only be at Level A? This appears to be the result of the above proposals.
With my original proposal, by contrast, the conformance claim could be
at Level AA (or AAA) because it would still be true that there is one
version of the content conforming at that higher level, even though it
is not the "default".

It isn't clear whether this is a desirable result. If there is a
default version, then the most that can be claimed is the level of
conformance achieved by that version. If there is no default, then the
most that can be claimed is the highest conformance level achieved by
any of the available versions (where "higher" means that AA is higher
than A, and AAA is higher than AA).

My question to the working group is whether this is what we want.
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 04:21:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT