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

Re: Conformance evaluations of IBM Home Page Reader

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: claws@us.ibm.com, Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, thatch@us.ibm.com, pjenkins@us.ibm.com, schwer@us.ibm.com, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908271956240.12178-100000@tux.w3.org>
I wold have thought that whatever totoal solution you used was what covered
the claim. For example "MyBrowser, and Theirbrowser, and ThisScreenReader,
and ThatScreenReader, and TheOtherBrailleDevice, as a collection of tools"
conform at level ....

(Assuming that none of the tools comply by themselves. To take a more
concrete example, I believe that Jaws for Windows will produce different
compliance levels when used with different pieces of software).

Charles McCN

  claws@us.ibm.com wrote:
  > 
  > Jon and Ian,
  > 
  > I was going to post this note on the UA listserv, but I wasn't sure if the
  > attachments would work or if you liked attachments on the listserv. Feel free to
  > redistribute this information.
  
[snip]  
  > 4. If you use HPR/other UAs with other mainstream browsers and assistive
  > technology, does the total browser solution comply with the guideline?

  and On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  No. The goal of the current conformance statement was to allow a piece
  of software to conform without depending on another piece of software.
  
  Which checkpoints do you think suggest that software in tandem
  might conform but not individually?
  
Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 20:00:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC