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

RE: RE: working definition of baseline

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:39:48 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050506140952.00aa56f0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

It seems to me that testing WCAG2.0 conformance might be complicated
in the future if multiple
baselines are assumed, because what is the practical upper limit of
the number of baselines possible, if more than one is allowed?   Enumerating
all of the possible differing sets of technologies supported by different user
agents might lend to consideration of a "spectrum" of baselines..  (example:
user agent 1 supports all technologies defined in a specified baseline but one,
  and user agent 2 supports all technologies defined in a specified 
baseline plus
one additional technology, and so on..)    How can one categorize a small 
finite number
of "collections" of technologies which "capture" the marketplace?  I ask these
questions since "baseline" is mentioned in WCAG2.0 conformance definitions 
in [1].

The definitions of conformance given in [1] seem conditional on 
"accessible" user agent
support for different technologies, and would testing accessibility of user 
agent support for different
technologies (or testing whether a user agent is "accessible") in this 
context have different aspects than testing accessible content per 
se..   We would need a definition for "accessible user agent"
if one does not already exist..

As an aside, in the conformance definitions in [1], "level" is used to 
describe "A", "AA", and "AAA",
and "level" is also used to describe 1, 2, and 3 in the same 
sentences.   Are these  two usages
  employing the same definition of "level" (the same context of usage 
relative to WCAG2.0 conformance
model)?

  At 12:55 PM 5/6/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>Loretta writes:
>
><blockquote>
>It ... feels like we are trying to restore some of the information
>that we moved into the conformance discussion when we tightened the
>baseline definition. See the proposal for conformance in [1].
>
>If we aren't comfortable with the minimal description, that is, just
>the first sentence, perhaps we should look at restoring some of the
>original language.
></blockquote>
>
>Good point.  The actual *definition* is contained in the first sentence:
>
><blockquote>
> > A minimum set of technologies assumed in the design of Web content
>to be
> > supported by, and enabled in, all user agents capable of providing a
> > user interface for the content.
></blockquote>
>
>Gregg had suggested changing the first word from "A" to "Any" as a way
>to leave room for multiple baselines.  Alan suggests making explicit
>reference to accessibility, so perhaps the following would work:
>
><new NewProposal>
>Any  minimum set of technologies assumed in the design of accessible Web
>content
>to be supported by, and enabled in, all user agents capable of providing
>a
>user interface for the content.
></newNewProposal>
>
>
>
>The next sentence (below) points out the implications of the baseline
>but isn't actually part of the definition:
>
><blockquote>
>Only user agents in which every
> > technology in the defined baseline is supported and enabled can
> > present the information in and allow a user to operate the
> > functionality of the content. </blockquote>
>
>John
>
>"Good design is accessible design."
>John Slatin, Ph.D.
>Director, Accessibility Institute
>University of Texas at Austin
>FAC 248C
>1 University Station G9600
>Austin, TX 78712
>ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
>email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
>web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lguarino@adobe.com [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:37 pm
>To: John M Slatin
>Cc: jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au; Web Content Guidelines
>Subject: Re: RE: working definition of baseline
>
>
> > <newProposal>
> > A minimum set of technologies assumed in the design of Web content
>to be
> > supported by, and enabled in, all user agents capable of providing a
> > user interface for the content. Only user agents in which every
> > technology in the defined baseline is supported and enabled can
> > present the information in and allow a user to operate the
> > functionality of the content. </newProposal>
>
>When I read this, the second sentence feels like we are requiring
>authors to use all the technologies in the baseline, that is,  that
>somehow we are disallowing the case that a particular website only
>uses one of the technologies in the baseline and there is a user agent
>that only supports that technology. For defining baseline, if we are
>going to include this sort of information, it probably needs to be
>turned inside out: if you use a technology that is not in the
>baseline, user agents will not allow users to perceive the information
>in and operate the functionality, etc.
>
>It also feels like we are trying to restore some of the information
>that we moved into the conformance discussion when we tightened the
>baseline definition. See the proposal for conformance in [1].
>
>If we aren't comfortable with the minimal description, that is, just
>the first sentence, perhaps we should look at restoring some of the
>original language.
>
>Loretta
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0364.html
Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 18:41:07 UTC

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