W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: Proposal: Conformance Statement

From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:47:05 -0500
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Cc: <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBJFEKMOPIHFHNBHMMIEHGCCAA.danson@miseri.edu>
Ian,

This language says that compliance can only come through native
implementation, which would leave out third party AT as a means of
compliance.  I don't think that this is necessarily a good idea.

One of the themes that has gone through the document in techniques is to
fully implement and expose the DOM as a means of conformance.  But that
implies that a third party device would use the information provided by the
DOM to provide access to the web.  The requirement of native implementation
would make exposure of the DOM a non-issue, since the browser must provide
direct access to all priority 1 items.

By allowing third party AT, we also give the option of such technology also
implementing priority 2 or 3 items, even though the mainstream browser does
not.

Denis Anson, MS, OTR
Assistant Professor
Computer Access Specialist
College Misericordia
301 Lake Street
Dallas, PA 18612

RESNA
The International Organization of Assistive Technology Professionals

Member since 1989

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Ian Jacobs
Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 6:36 PM
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Cc: jbrewer@w3.org
Subject: Proposal: Conformance Statement


Hello,

Based on consensus reached during the 20 January teleconference [1],
I propose the following statement of conformance to the
User Agent Guidelines. Note that all the hard work lays ahead:
establishing two subsets of checkpoints.

 - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0071.html

--

Conformance

The terms "must", "should", and "may" (and related terms) are
used in this document in accordance with RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]).

This document defines two categories of conformance in order to
promote a standard of accessibility within, and interoperability
between, two important classes of user agents - graphical desktop
browsers and dependent assistive technologies.

Desktop graphical user agents

      To conform to this document, a desktop graphical user agent
      must:

         1.Satisfy all the Priority 1 checkpoints explicitly
           marked as applying to that class of user agent, and

         2.Satisfy those checkpoints natively (i.e., no additional
           software is required) unless the checkpoint explicitly
           indicates that it may be satisfied through communication
           with other software.

      Even for those checkpoints that must be satisfied natively,
      desktop graphical user agents should make information
      available to other software through standard interfaces.

Dependent user agents

      To conform to this document, a dependent user agent must:

         1.Satisfy all the Priority 1 checkpoints explicitly marked
           as applying to that class of user agent.

         2.Satisfy those checkpoints natively (i.e., no additional
           software is required) unless the checkpoint explicitly
           indicates that it may be satisfied through communication
           with other software.

Verification that a checkpoint has been satisfied lies outside
of the scope of this document and the activities of the WAI User
Agent Working  Group. The checkpoints are expressed in
language intended to facilitate verification by other parties.

Please note that lack of conformance does not imply lack of
accessibility. However, the WAI User Agent Working Group believes
that a user agent that conforms to this document is more likely
to be accessible than one that does not.

The conformance mechanisms defined here reflect the weight that
the WAI User Agent Working Group assigns to the Priority 1
checkpoints. However, the Working Group also recommends that
user agent developers satisfy as many checkpoints as possible,
including Priority 2 and 3 checkpoints.

Received on Tuesday, 2 February 1999 08:46:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:22 UTC