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

RE: baseline_overview_draft.htm

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:04:47 -0600
To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <lisa@ubaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "GVAN" <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Message-ID: <007301c5ee48$563e8100$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
Answers below marked GV:   

 


Gregg

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

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 1:38 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: baseline_overview_draft.htm


"Baseline specifications are not browser specifications"


But can they be platform / operating system / client specific?

 

GV: The baseline cannot be platform/operating system client specific.
Authors could however put technologies in their baseline that only exist on
one platform, or that are only accessible on one platform.  That is why it
is important that standard baselines be created that do not depend or
include technologies that are not widely supported.   Whether they need to
be supported on all platforms is another question.   All types of AT don't
even exist on all platforms. 

 

Also, by allowing closed platforms in the baseline you are often making it
operating system specific, as closed platforms may only have accessibility
in windows.

 

GV: I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you referring to the INTRANET
example and comments? 

 

 Further, if a baseline does not require cross platform support then there
will be no incentive for them to implement cross platform accessibility.
Because they are closed assistive technologies, open source ect will never
be able to port them across operating systems

 

GV:  This may be true. But requiring cross platform content may be beyond
our charge.   I personally would love to require cross platform content.
But I don't know that we can go there.  Will have to look at this one and
ask W3C what we can do. The we need to talk to  the working group to see
what they want to do (within what we can do). 

 

One last point. It is not the same as saying that this plug in only works in
windows - because the plugin may work in different operating systems - just
the accessibility does not. 

 

GV: Yes.   This is a concern.  I mentioned it  in my first answer above.
Accessibility IS in our bailiwick.    This seems a bit mixed with the cross
platform question so we'll have to tease out where we can go on this. 

 

All the best

Lisa

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Christophe Strobbe <mailto:christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>  

To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:02 PM

Subject: Re: baseline_overview_draft.htm

 


At 02:53 17/11/2005, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
<blockquote>
We have been working on a description of the baseline concept.

Attached is what the editors have been able to develop on this.

We can review it tomorrow. It would be good to release it with the next
draft.
</blockquote>

I made a few editorial changes (see attachment: 
baseline_overview_draf_editsCS.html).
Below is the list of changes:

WCAG 2.0 working group -> WCAG working group
the 2.0 guidelines -> the WCAG 2.0 guidelines / version 2.0 of the
guidelines
todays -> today's
non W3C technologies -> non-W3C technologies
to create an accessible Web content yet -> to create accessible Web 
content, yet [delete 'an'; add comma before 'yet']
without introducing incompatible guidelines between countries -> without 
introducing guidelines that are incompatible between countries
By using this two layered approach, it is possible -> This two-layered 
approach makes it possible
The group however found  -> The group, however, found
set of technologies  see below) ->  set of technologies, see below),
introduce a new concept "baseline".-> introduce a new concept: "baseline".
[deleted colons at end of hx elements]
and other a few other commonly supported technologies -> and a few other 
commonly supported technologies
the users agent -> the user agent [several instances]
If the users user agent -> If the user agent
for each success criteria -> for each success criterion
Within some of these docs ->Within some of these documents
each success criteria of the guidelines -> each success criterion of the 
guidelines
technique docs - >  technique documents

In fact the working group -> In fact, the working group

In the section "Additional Information Related Baseline and Conformance":
Required components ...
[added full stop at the end of each item]
Additional Information Related Baseline and Conformance -> Additional 
Information Related to Baseline and Conformance
Optional components of a conformance claim:
1.
technologies 'relied upon" -> technologies "relied upon"
[code for nested lists was messed up]
- (This includes markup languages, style sheet languages, 
scripting/programming languages, image formats, and multimedia formats.) -> 
[remove the parentheses?]
-  relied upon means that the content would not meet WCAG 2.0 at the 
claimed level if that technology is turned off or not supported) -> Relied 
... [capitalise first letter of the sentence; replace closing parenthesis 
with full stop]
- the set of -> The set of
2.
A list of the specific technologies that are "used" but not "relied upon" 
-> [add full stop]

[In "Examples of conformance claims", asterisks were replaced with <em> + 
styling to display as bold instead of italic.]

Note that in example 4 the author is ...; the company -> Note that in 
example 4, the author is ...: the company
cross disability accessible ->  cross-disability accessible
e.g. what version of HTML? of XHTML? of CSS? of PDF? of Flash? etc -> For 
example, what version of HTML, XHTML, CSS, PDF, etcetera?
Win98, Win 95 -> Windows 98, Windows 95
When dealing with the Internet therefore it is important -> When dealing 
with the Internet, it is therefore important
Some question to consider -> Below are some question to consider.
user agent (does one exist) -> user agent (if one exists)
supported by only by user agents ->  supported only by user agents
Is the accessible version of the plug-in not the one that usually is 
downloaded or pointed to? -> Is the accessible version of the plug-in 
different from the one that is usually downloaded or pointed to?


Removed unused CSS styles.
Changed character encoding from cp-1252 to UTF-8 and cleaned up 
unrecognized character entities.
Changed DOCTYPE to XHTML 1.0 Transitional.


Regards,

Christophe



-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 03:05:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT