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

RE: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: issue with Guideline 4.2 )

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:35:57 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000188331342@spamarrest.com>

Sorry Jason,  

I didn't mean that one to be taken that literally.  The example was meant to
provide a parallel for the above.  Let me try again.

Let's say I create a new document format called Gregg's Realtime Internet
Text or GRIT for short.   I publish an API and anyone can create AT to go
along with it if they please. My player meets UAAG.  However, the AT mfgrs
don't think that it is worth going to the trouble to make theirs work with
mine - so none has any plans to.  

However,  If they ever did my content would be accessible.  There is a
snowballs chance in Hades that they will - but my content would pass as
accessible and I can create as many sites as I want - including one that
provides all the public funding information for the state's depts. of social
services.  I do it at Level 1.   No-one with a disability can access this
information because there is no AT that works with GRIT - (but it would be
accessible if anyone ever did).

I don't think this should pass as accessible.   Or that we should say that
it was just fine to use GRIT. 

We can just say 'not our problem' - but I don't think that works either. 
Not sure how to handle this though.  

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:45 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'Yvette P. Hoitink'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Call to embrace new technologies (Was: RE: issue with Guideline
4.2 )

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > This is a tough question.
 >    - do we really want to say that something is accessible if it cannot
 > used by people with disabilities -- but theoretically could if someday
 > someone made a tool that allowed it?

At the very least, the content should conform so soon as the tool
comes into existence; it shouldn't need to wait until the tool is
"widely available" (whatever that means) or available below a certain
price threshold.

 > If so then should we remove the requirement for alt text for images of
 > because theoretically someday you could make a tool that would read the
 > right off the image?   
At last week's meeting I explained why this was a bad example. What we
should do is to set a standard: user agents need to conform to UAAG;
content may be written under the assumption that user agents meet
their responsibilities. Nothing in UAAG (current or proposed) requires
that user agents be able to perform OCR or other analysis of images.

Whether we want to limit conformance to level 1 in the event that user
agents haven't met certain requirements is another issue entirely, but
in general I am in sympathy with the idea of not requiring wide
availability of implementations for the purpose of WCAG conformance.
Received on Sunday, 19 December 2004 17:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:51 UTC