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

Re: Minutes

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:59:00 -0600
Message-Id: <199812161658.KAA19258@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
There was discusion that it may be to vague during the meeting.  Ian said
that this item was being referenced to much by other techniques and
therefore may need to be refined.  When I read it now I think that it is
difficult to interpret.  The way it is written now I don't know when I
satisfy it.  

Do I need to provide Braille input and a Braille keyboard device?
Do I need speech recognition and speech output?
Do I need a single switch scanning system?

How much redundency satisfies this requirement?

Please submit your view and your interpretation to the list for discussion.  

In my view this technique does not fly with the current wording.

Jon




At 01:20 AM 12/16/98 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> 
>> The summary conclusion in the minutes includes the statement that 3.1.1 is
>> too vague to be a technique.
>> 
>> I do not recall this ever being decided by the group.
>
>I very much agree with Charles here. 
>
> - Ian
>
>> I think that at one
>> point it may have been suggested that this was the case by an individual,
>> and it was suggested to me in private converstaion by an individual.
> 
>> I do not regard the technique (following the proposed modification which
>> changes the requirement from redundant meansof control to
>> device-independent means of control) as even slightly vague. It can be
>> checked explicitly by the following test:
>> 
>> For each function provided by the User Agent (changing font, activating a
>> link, selecting text, changing rate of speech, decreasing tolerance of
>> key-bounce, determining how often headers are repeated in linearised
>> tables, etc, as applicable to the User Agent in Question) is it possible
>> for the control to be activated in a device independent manner? If there
>> is an API, or a control feature for which the OS always provides
>> alternative access, the answer is yes. If there is a hardware-specific
>> mechanism, for which there is no API, the answer is no.
>> 
>> It is a wide-reaching guideline, which is very important to ensure
>> accessibility of a User Agent. It probably should be modified to take
>> account of whether the User Agent makes an API available or whether it is
>> constrained to certain hardware. But then, a touch screen information
>> kiosk, with no voice output or tactile feedback, is not accessible. Which
>> is not the same thing as saying that it cannot serve a need, merely that
>> in nearly all circumstances it is not a total solution to that need.
>> 
>> --Charles McCathieNevile -  mailto:charles@w3.org
>> phone:(temporary) +1 (617) 258 8143  http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
>> 
>> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative -  http://www.w3.org/WAI
>> 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, USA
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
>Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> 
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 1998 11:58:41 GMT

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