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

RE: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

From: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:13:08 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B053ECF9E@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Jason wrote:

<blockquote>
In sum, I am suggesting that there should only be one availability
requirement, and that the conditions spelled out already in the draft
should apply to both AEWT's and supporting assistive technologies (to
the extent that these are not included in user agents by default).
</blockquote>

I agree.

"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 Jason White
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:37 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006



On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 06:28:23AM -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
> This is feedback with regard to: 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/11/conformance-revs.html
> 
> The document is really good, my hat is off to the folks pulling this 
> together.  It is hard work.

I agree wholeheartedly.

In the discussion of availability (condition 1 of what it means for a
technology to be an AEWT), the document refers several times to
assistive technology that is available to "almost all users", but
without specifying precisely what is required. For example, an assistive
technology should be regarded as available to almost all users even
though it is not installed by default on users' workstations.

In part 2 of the same section, we have clear requirements for the
availability of an AEWT, namely that it is available (in a
non-discriminatory fashion) for download or purchase. I suggest that the
same requirement should apply to assistive technologies for purposes of
their being "available to almost all users".

In sum, I am suggesting that there should only be one availability
requirement, and that the conditions spelled out already in the draft
should apply to both AEWT's and supporting assistive technologies (to
the extent that these are not included in user agents by default).
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 16:13:27 GMT

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