W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: categorization of techniques

From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199811172002.MAA09717@netcom13.netcom.com>
To: jongund@staff.uiuc.edu, kathyhe@microsoft.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hi,
I believe there should be effort to always make the information
available.  Different disabilities may have unique needs where
a direct implementation may not be reasonable to expect.

When a group of users can benefit from the access being built
directly into the browser and implementation of direct access is
not an unreasonable burden on the browser developer, then direct
access should also be included.  This avoids the issue of "commonly
available", but does introduce the need for browser developers
to give technical reasons why the expectation may be too much
a burden.

Scott

> I disagree with the wording of:
> [Direct or Compatible]
> This technique can be implemented directly or through compatibility with
> assistive technology when assistive technology is commonly available to
> provide access to the user agent.  If assistive technology is not commonly
> available this feature should be directly implmented.
> 
> What does it mean for an assistive technology to be commonly availabe and
> who decides if it is commonly available?
> 
> If it is going to be listed as [Direct or Compatible] then it should remain
> an either/or listing and not this ambiguous "can be done directly or through
> compatibility, but if not compatible, then it must be direct".
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Gunderson [mailto:jongund@staff.uiuc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 9:16 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: categorization of techniques
> 
> 
> The current model for categorization of techniques, requires two levels.
> 
> 1. Priority Level (need from the users perspective)
> [Priority 1] 
> This technique must be implemented otherwise one or more groups of users
> with
> disabilities will find it impossible to access information. Implementing
> this
> technique is a basic requirement for some individuals to be able to use the
> Web. 
> [Priority 2] 
> This technique should be implemented, otherwise one or more groups of users
> will
> find it difficult to access information. Implementing this technique will
> significantly improve access to the Web for some individuals. 
> [Priority 3] 
> This technique may be implemented, to make it easier for one or more groups
> of
> users to access information. Implementing this technique will improve
> access to
> the Web for some individuals. 
> 
> 2. Implementation Recommendation (
> [Direct]
> This technique must be implemented directly by the user agent and provide
> comaptibility for third party assistive technology
> 
> [Direct or Compatible]
> This technique can be implemented directly or through compatibility with
> assistive technology when assistive technology is commonly available to
> provide
> access to the user agent.  If assistive technology is not commonly available
> this feature should be directly implmented.
> 
> How does this model work for people?
> 
> Jon
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 15:04:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:48:38 GMT