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

RE: RE: working definition of baseline

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 20:49:44 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B0117A99B@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Jason wrote:
<blockquote>
I can envisage situations in which content might pass a success
criterion if the baseline is taken to comprise all the technologies used
in it [the content], but not if the baseline consists only of
technologies that are indispensable to the content's being presented by
a user agent. 
</ blockquote>

I have a feeling that this goes back to something that Wendy (I think)
said in an earlier thread about baseline and 4.2-- I'm remembering a
distinction drawn between technologies *required* by the content and
technologies *used* by the content.  

The idea was that in the absence of a *required* technology content
would not be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust, and
would not degrade gracefully-- it would simply break. The content
*would* degrade gracefully in the absence of technology that was merely
"used."

I'm not sure I've captured that distinction accurately

And, like Gregg, I'd appreciate a concrete example or two.

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 8:33 PM
To: 'Web Content Guidelines'
Subject: RE: RE: working definition of baseline






Jason wrote
Is this everything we need, or do we also have to say what has so often
been urged in connection with the concept of a baseline, that it is the
minimum set of technologies which the content requires in order to be
operative? This is where the distinction is drawn between technologies
which are part of the baseline, hence essential to the content's being
presented/functional, and technologies that are not, in the absence of
which the content "degrades gracefully"?

End of JASON CLIP


I'm not sure - but I think this is all we need - because conformance to
WCAG 2.0 already requires that everything be operable as part of
conformance. That is, all the functionality would need to be preserved
while conforming to the guidelines. 

But Jason you also wrote:
<Jason clip #2>
I can envisage situations in which content might pass a success
criterion if the baseline is taken to comprise all the technologies used
in it, but not if the baseline consists only of technologies that are
indispensable to the content's being presented by a user agent. </ Jason
clip #2>

I don't understand this last clip.  If you have a baseline of tech - and
the content conforms with that assumed set of tech - then I think we are
all
done.   Can you give us an example of what you mean with the above clip?
Just make it a specific example labeling the baseline technologies and
what you mean by the rest. 

Thanks - I think we may be getting close.  Does this fit other people's
questions, issues, and answers? 



(relevant portions of text are preserved below so that this top posting
makes sense). 


 


 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 7:15 PM
To: 'Web Content Guidelines'
Subject: Re: RE: working definition of baseline


On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 04:48:28PM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
<SNIP>

Gregg Wrote:
> 
> Soooooo - how about this.
> 
> <proposal>
> 
> Baseline User Agent Assumptions.
> 
> Any set of technologies that are assumed to be supported by the user
> agent and enabled (turned on) when determining if the content would 
> meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines (at any level).
> 

This is good, as it captures the aspect of baseline which I think every
participant in this discussion is likely to to agree upon.

> NOTE 1: Some examples of entities that may set baselines that an 
> author may have to follow include the author, their company, a 
> customer and government entities.
> 
> NOTE 2: In the techniques document we plan to discuss techniques for 
> conforming to WCAG 2.0 based on three different baselines (i.e. 
> assumptions of technologies supported and active in user agents).
>  
> </proposal>

All fine so far. Is this everything we need, or do we also have to say
what
has so often been urged in connection with the concept of a baseline,
that
it is the minimum set of technologies which the content requires in
order to
be operative? This is where the distinction is drawn between
technologies
which are part of the baseline, hence essential to the content's being
presented/functional, and technologies that are not, in the absence of
which
the content "degrades gracefully"?

I can envisage situations in which content might pass a success
criterion if
the baseline is taken to comprise all the technologies used in it, but
not
if the baseline consists only of technologies that are indispensable to
the
content's being presented by a user agent.

So, thinking as I write here, it appears that the minimality condition
does
make a difference and that the right way to think of a baseline is as
whatever technologies a given piece of content of which conformance is
claimed minimally requires for successful presentation and operation. 
My only point about accessibility was that this concept is not
intrinsically
tied to any notion of accessibility and applies to all content on the
Web,
whether it conforms or not; but the purpose for which we want to employ
the
concept relates to accessibility evaluation.
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 01:49:54 UTC

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