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

Re: 11.1 versus 11.2

From: Kitch Barnicle <kab42@columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:19:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199908261919.OAA04438@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Ian,

All of my comments appear at the top of this message. 

I hadn't really noticed the issue that you pointed out regarding the fact that
guideline 11 mentions W3C technologies specifically but covers more than W3C
technologies.   I like your suggestion of changing the guideline to read 
something like "Support Open Specifications and Known Accessibility
Features."   But I still think the wording of  checkpoint 11.2, Support
appropriate W3C recommendations is confusing. Maybe I am just not in synch
with
W3C terminology.  Are there inappropriate W3C recommendations or are we saying
support those recommendations that apply to your user agent?  Maybe it should
just say Support W3C recommendations with no qualifier.  Are "W3C
recommendations" different from "W3C technologies"?  

kitch




At 10:47 AM 8/26/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Kitch Barnicle wrote:
>> 
>> What is the difference between checkpoint 11.1 and 11.2, which are both
under
>> the guideline "User agents should support applicable W3C technologies
and in
>> particular the accessibility features defined for the technology."
>> 
>> 11.1 Implement the accessibility features defined for supported
technologies.
>> [Priority 1]
>> 
>>  11.2 Support appropriate W3C Recommendations. [Priority 2] For instance,
for
>> document markup, support HTML and XML; for style sheets, support CSS; for
>> mathematics, support MathML; for multimedia, support SMIL, etc.
>
>Hi Kitch,
>
>The differences are the following:
>
>1) 11.1 refers to any technologies, not just W3C technologies. This
>   would make the either the Guideline too specific (since it
>   mentions W3C) or the checkpoint too general (and it should be
>   limited to W3C specs). 
>
>2) 11.1 refers to support for accessibility features, 11.2 refers to
>   support for standards. If you can't do all of a standard (Priority 2)
>   then be sure to do the accessibility parts (Priority 1).
>
>There's an emphasis on W3C specs for reasons enumerated
>in the rationale paragraph:
> 
>   > * W3C technologies include "built-in" accessibility features. 
>   > * W3C specifications undergo early review to ensure that 
>       accessibility issues are considered during the design phase. 
>   > * W3C specifications are developed in an open, industry 
>       consensus process. 
>
>To address the discrepancy between the guideline text and
>the text of checkpoint 11.1, we could either:
>
>a) Expand the scope of the guideline to something like 
>   "Support Open Specifications and Known Accessibility Features"
>  
>   We might add a checkpoint to the effect of "Support open standards",
>   but I'm not convinced of the necessity.
>
>b) Reduce the scope of checkpoint 11.1 to be: "Implement
>   accessibility features defined for supported W3C technologies."
>
>I propose (a) without an additional checkpoint.
>
>On a related note:
>
>Yesterday in the AU WG meeting [1] we debated the use of the
>word "defined" in a similar checkpoint from the AU Guidelines.
>Several people felt that "defined" was too strong a word.
>
>The 18 August version of the AU Guidelines [2] reads:
>
>  > 3.1 Implement all accessible authoring practices 
>  >     that have been defined for the markup
>  >     language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1] 
>
>
>The 25 August version of the AU Guidelines [3] reads:
>
>
> > 3.1 Ensure the author can implement accessible 
> >     authoring practices for the markup
> >     language(s) supported by the tool.
>
>I propose that in any wording change to checkpoint 11.1
>of the UA Guidelines, that we adopt similar wording, along
>the lines of:
>
>   "Implement known accessibility features of W3C technologies."
>
>or in the more general case:
>  
>   "Implement known accessibility features of supported 
>    technologies."
>
>(Perhaps adding a note that this means markup languages, style
> sheet languages, schema languages, metadata formats, etc.)
>
>Thanks Kitch,
>
> - Ian
>
>Reference document:
> 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/W
AI-USERAGENT-19990809/
>
>[1]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0142.html>http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0142.html
>[2]
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990818/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI
-AUTOOLS-19990818/
>[3]
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990825>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-
AUTOOLS-19990825
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)  
<http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
>  
Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 15:19:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:15 GMT