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: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:36:13 +1100
Message-ID: <16838.7805.157298.130293@jdc.local>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > 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).
Several options here:

1. It conforms at Level 1 but the government sites that use your
   format might not have met tqheir
   "accessibility/non-discrimination" responsibilities under whatever
   legislation is in effect. In other words, WCAG conformance does not
   equal "accessibility" under the circumstances.

2. Pressure is brought to bear on AT developers to provide support,
   which places the responsibility where, under this scenario, it
   properly belongs.

3. Someone creates a transforming proxy server to handle it.

4. We write a policy document which warns precisely against this kind
   of scenario. Officials in the government municipality read it and
   decide to offer an alternative version of the site in another
   format. Note that this would not affect their conformance unless we
   added an additional parameter to the conformance claim to
   distinguish the type/level of technological support presupposed in
   designing the content.

Of course it is also possible that none of the above happens, in which
event users bear the burden. I don't want to maintain that the content
fails to conform, however, for all the reasons Yvette mentions, and
nor is this result in the least satisfactory. Faced with a choice I
would say that the content conforms, in the confidence that this sort
of situation is unlikely to be commonplace.
Received on Monday, 20 December 2004 00:37:22 UTC

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