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

Re: working definition of baseline

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@teleservicios.es>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 10:03:49 +0200
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <opsqcgonehx03efm@0032k2d.e-fti.com>

Some comments and a suggestion.

I would have said "only with these technologies is accessibility ensured"  
but the GLs don't _ensure_ or guarantee accessibility.

Is "every technology" necessary? Most accessibility features (or SCs) are  
dependent on just a subset of them I think.

It would be useful to mention "accessibility features" (the proposed  
definitions don't mention accessibility or SCs) and "take advantage of",  
"benefit from" or "use".

So here's my suggestion:

"Many of the accessibility features defined in these guidelines require  
specific technologies. Only user agents in which the necessary  
technologies are implemented and enabled can take advantage of the  
accessibility features defined in these guidelines."

Alan Chuter
Fundosa Teleservicios
achuter@teleservicios.es
Tel. +34 91 1210335


En Fri, 6 May 2005 17:13:11 +1000, Jason White  
<jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au> escribió:

>
> lguarino@adobe.com writes:
>  > <working definition>
>  > The minimum set of technologies that are assumed to be supported by
>  > and activated in user agents in order to access all information and
>  > functionality of the web content.
>  > </working definition>
>
> I propose the following: <propose> A minimum set of technologies
> assumed in the design of Web content to be supported by, and enabled
> in, all user agents accessing the content. Only user agents in which
> every technology in the baseline is supported and enabled can access
> the information and functionality in the content.
> </propose>
>
> We might also have to adjust the definition of "technology", if
> necessary, to refer to a specific version of a specification, so that
> different versions count as distinct technologies for the purpose of
> defining the baseline. An alternative would be to complicate the above
> definition further by inserting language about versions, which I would
> rather avoid.
>
>



-- 
Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 08:06:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC