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

Baseline Editors Note

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:48:39 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000162121744@spamarrest.com>
Here is a writeup on the Baseline approach for inclusion in the guidelines -
so we can get feedback.

 

Thanks to Wendy, Ben and Jason for help

 

 

 

[START OF EDITOR'S NOTE]


Editor's Note - Baseline Technologies Assumption


 

In working on WCAG 2.0, the WCAG Working Group continues to struggle with
the role of content authors and the role of user agents in making Web
content accessible to people with disabilities. In WCAG 1.0 we identified
shortcomings in user agents and created guidelines with phrases like, "until
user agents.".  

 

Today, many of the same issues continue to exist but we are looking for a
more effective mechanism to address them than creating temporary bridge
guidelines to make up for user agent shortcomings.  One way of doing this
would be to write the guidelines based on an assumption of a baseline user
agent.  We are currently considering using user agents that conform to the
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 as the baseline User Agent for WCAG
2.0. That is, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines would be written assuming that all
users had user agents that conform to all of the Priority 1 Checkpoints from
the User Agent Accessibility Guideline 1.0 (UAAG 1.0). This has many
implications. (For example, WCAG 2.0 would assume that user agents can
toggle scripts on and off.)   

 

Today, no single user agent meets all of the UAAG 1.0 Priority 1
Checkpoints. If WCAG 2.0 adopts an assumption that user agents conform to
UAAG 1.0 Priority 1 Checkpoints, there would be some shortfall between Web
content that meets WCAG 2.0 and currently available user agents. To address
this shortfall, we propose to take two measures.

 

1)      Press hard for the development of user agents that conform to all
Priority 1 Checkpoints of UAAG 1.0 

2)      To develop a set of "repair techniques" that could be used by
content authors who would like to create content that  not only meets WCAG
2.0, but which also makes up for the shortfall in current user agents. 

 

We would also like to work with the UAAG and ATAG groups to come up with a
set of strategies that user agent manufacturers could build into their user
agents to help make up for common shortcomings of page authors.

 

The result would be a more stable WCAG 2.0 as well as better integration
with UAAG to put the responsibility for the appropriate parts of the
accessibility issue on the appropriate parts of the Web technologies (user
agents versus Web content).  Refer to Interdependent Components of Web
Accessibility for more information.

 

The WCAG Working Group is analyzing this approach to better understand how
it might affect users.  The guidelines and success criteria in this Working
Draft does not yet reflect this direction.  The WCAG WG invites you to
comment on this approach and the related issues.

 

[END OF EDITOR'S NOTE]

 

 


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>  

 

 
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 05:48:45 GMT

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