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

RE: RE: working definition of baseline

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:00:16 +1000
Message-ID: <17020.15696.519288.372042@jdc.local>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

John M Slatin writes:
 > 
 > <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>

I agree with the use of "any" in the above, but not with the inclusion
of any reference to accessibility in the definition of baseline. Every
piece of Web content, whether accessible or not (whatever one means by
"accessible") has a baseline. Having recognized this, we can then
evaluate in particular cases whether we think it's a good baseline or
a bad/inappropriate/unreasonable baseline; but let's not build the
"goodness" aspect into what we mean by "baseline". It's a lot clearer
if we can speak about good and bad baselines, instead of having to say
that someone who has made inappropriate technology assumptions in
designing a piece of Web content hasn't chosen a baseline at all. What
we should instead be able to say is that they've chosen an
unreasonable baseline - that we think their choice of baseline was
unsuitable to their content and audience, etc.

I apologize for making the same point repeatedly in this discussion; I
am simply trying to demonstrate the confusions we get into if we
include some sort of normative requirement in the definition of
"baseline".
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2005 04:01:35 UTC

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