- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:08:24 -0600
- To: "Ben Caldwell" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "WCAG-WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Splendid work, Ben. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Caldwell Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:58 PM To: WCAG-WG Subject: some additional thoughts on baseline Hi guys, some additional thoughts on baseline: 1.) What can authors assume about all user agents accessing their content if user agents were UAAG 1.0 conformant? (partial list) - user agents will render content according to specification (standards would be supported correctly) - scripting may or may not be turned on, but turning them off has consequences - CSS may or may not be enabled - effective interactions with multimedia content may or may not be available - animated or blinking content can be turned off - users can configure font size/family, regardless of how it is encoded - conditional content and other alternatives are available In taking a closer look at this, it seems to me that quite a few of the issues we were wrestling with when using UAAG as a baseline was first proposed remain and that WCAG still needs to answer the question of when an author can use a given technology ((X)HTML, CSS, script, XML, SVG, MathML, RDF, Flash, PDF, etc...) to conform to WCAG 2.0 without also having to provide an equivalent alternative for that content. I've attached some notes related to UAAG as baseline. They include a summary of some of the larger issues around UAAG that I've run into, a table with rough notes comparing WCAG with UAAG to see where they intersect, and a list of candidate repair techniques from our techniques drafts. -- Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu> Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 16:08:26 UTC