W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Revised Conformance Section

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:06:30 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B01249070@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Here are some suggested edits for the Revised Conformance section. All
of these are *intended* to be purely editorial.

To make it easier to find the relevant places in the text, the content
ini Gregg's proposal is tagged as <currentProposal>, and the suggested
content with edits is tagged as <editedProposal>.


John

<begin suggestions>

<currentProposal>
Note: For each success criteria there are techniques listed that are
sufficient to meet them. Each technique has a test to determine whether
it has been</currentProposal>

Edited>
Note: For each success criterion there is a list of techniques deemed
sufficient to meet the requirement. For each technique there is a test
to determine whether the technique has been successfully implemented.
<editedProposal>

<currentProposal>
If they relied on technologies
that were not supported, then their content may not be accessible.

</currentProposal>

<editedProposal>
If authors rely on technologies
that are not supported, then their content may not be accessible.
</editedProposal>


<currentProposal>
WCAG 2.0 does not specify any particular baseline. This is done for
several reasons. First, what is appropriate in a baseline may differ for
different environments.
For example, for content that will be viewed only by company employees,
a company may be able to assume a higher level of user agent technology
if they
provide that technology to all their employees. For public Websites
however a more conservative level of technology may be all that can be
reasonably assumed.
Baselines may also vary by jurisdiction. And the level of technology
that can be assumed to be supported by accessile user agents will
certainly change
over time.

</currentProposal>

<editedProposal>
WCAG 2.0 does not specify any particular baseline. There are several
reasons for this. First, what is appropriate in a baseline may differ
for different environments.
For example, in the case of content that will be viewed only by
employees of a particular company, it may be possible to assume that
user agents support more advanced technologies if the company 
Provides the necessary user agents (including assistive technology) to
all employees. For public Websites, however, a more conservative level
of technology may be all that can be reasonably assumed.
Baselines may also vary by jurisdiction. Finally, the level of
technology that can be assumed to be supported by accessible user agents
will certainly change
over time.
</editedProposal>



<currentProposal>
(Note that in example 3, the author is not specifying the baseline in
terms of a user agent but rather in terms of the Web content
technologies that are
supported and enabled in those user agents (including assistive
technologies)
</currentProposal>

<editedProposal>
(Note that in the examples above, the baseline is not specified in terms
of specific user agents but rather in terms of the Web content
technologies that are
supported and enabled in those user agents (including assistive
technologies.)
</editedProposal>


<currentProposal>
If a success criterion relates to a technology that you are not using
(e.g. you don't have any multimedia on your site) then you automatically
meet that
success criterion since you don't have any multimedia on your site that
does not meet the success criterion.
</currentProposal>

<editedProposal>
If a success criterion relates to a technology that is not used in the
content (for example, there is no multimedia on the site), then that
success criterion is met automatically.
</editedProposal>



<currentProposal>
This could include language, geographic information.
</currentProposal>

<editedProposal>
This could include language, geographic information, or other pertinent
information about the intended audience.
</editedProposal>


<currentProposal>
Sometimes a Web-Page* is assembled ("aggregated") from multiple sources
that each may or may not have their own level of conformance. They may
in fact not
even be
Web-Pages*
or primary resources of any kind - and thus would not, and sometime
could not, conform to all of the success criteria by themselves. These
sources are called
authored units ("some set of material created as a single entity by an
author"). The conformance level for a Web-Page that contains authored
units is equal
to the lowest conformance level claimed for the Web-Page content and any
of the authored units it contains - including any claims of aggregated
authored
units. If authored units do not have an accessibility claim then the
claim must be based on the Web-Page with the authored units in place.

</currentProposal>

Editd>Proposal>
Sometimes a Web-Page* is assembled ("aggregated") from multiple sources
that each may or may not have their own level of conformance. They may
in fact not
even be
Web-Pages*
or primary resources of any kind - and thus would not, and sometimes
could not, conform to all of the success criteria by themselves. These
sources are called
authored units ("some set of material created as a single entity by an
author"). The conformance level for a Web-Page* that contains authored
units is equal
to the lowest conformance level claimed for the Web-Page* content and
any of the authored units it contains - including any claims pertaining
to aggregated authored
units. If individual authored units do not carry a conformance claim,
then the claim must be based on the Web-Page* with the authored units in
place.
</editedProposal>


</end suggestions>


"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/


 
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 17:06:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT