W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:53:55 +1000
Message-ID: <16979.23891.824969.850825@jdc.local>
To: lguarino@adobe.com
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I would like to propose an alternative for guideline 4.2, namely that
it should impose the following constraint on acceptable baselines.
Yes, I know this is predictable and boring, and it still doesn't
provide an ideal formulation:

<propose>
The content is implemented in such a way as to rely, for its
presentation and interaction, only on formats, markup or programming
languages, protocols and API's of which one of the following is true:

1. The format, markup or programming language, protocol or API is
   listed in the UAAG conformance claim of at least one user agent
   that conforms to UAAG 1.0.

2. The content uses the format, markup or programming language,
   protocol or API in such a way that the departures of at least one
   user agent from conformance to UAAG 1.0 Level A with respect to
   that technology do not diminish the accessibility of the content.
</propose>

This is badly written but it's the best I can achieve today. We could
shorten it by defining "technology" as "format, markup or programming
language, protocol or API" and adjusting accordingly. The second
alternative also needs to be tightened; the basic idea is that the
content is written so that the shortfall of at least one user agent
from UAAG conformance is compensated for, or is immaterial to its
accessibility.
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 03:54:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC