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

RE: Proposed change to priority wording

From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:34:44 -0400
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OCEDIDJABCKNMLGMBFLGOEFICCAA.danson@miseri.edu>
Ian,

I don't think we are saying the same thing here.  As I read it, currently
you can meet a guideline by either providing the functionality natively, or
by enabling assistive technology to provide that functionality.  "Browsers"
that provide speech, for example, are using add-on technologies (such as
Jaws) on top of an existing browser which enables them to provide speech.

Checkpoint 7.1 specifies that content be available in alternative
representations.  This could be taken to mean that the browser must support
speech, Braille, and other alternative representations.  But the user agent
itself probably won' t be generating the speech.  It will be making the
content available to an add-on screen reader.  So long as this can be met by
enabling AT, the browser would be conformant if it makes content accessible,
perhaps via DOM.  But if it must generate speech natively, that is a problem
for almost everyone!

As I read your proposed change, you would require speech as a native
capability.

Denis Anson, MS, OTR
Assistant Professor
College Misericordia
301 Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612

Member since 1989:
RESNA: An International Association of Assistive Techology Professionals
Website: http://www.resna.org
RESNA ANNUAL CONFERENCE -- "RESNA 2000"
ORLANDO, FL, JUNE 28 -- July 2, 2000

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Ian Jacobs
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 4:58 PM
To: Denis Anson
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change to priority wording

Denis Anson wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> The way I have been thinking of this is that, to be conformant, a browser
> must meet all Priority 1 checkpoints.  But the standard for priority 1 is
> that "This checkpoint must be implemented by user agents as a native
feature
> or through compatibility with assistive technology, otherwise one or more
> groups of users with disabilities will find it impossible to access
> information. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some
> individuals to be able to use the Web. "
> To me, that says that it is possible to meet the checkpoint using AT.
Your
> proposed wording would require a conformant browser to be all things to
all
> people, natively.

That is exactly correct. However not all checkpoints apply to
every user agent. But when they do apply, you must do them natively.

> I can almost guarantee that if we set the bar that high,
> most folks won't even make the effort!

Please show me which checkpoints you think set the bar too high.

 _ Ian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
Behalf
> Of Ian Jacobs
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:47 PM
> To: Denis Anson
> Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed change to priority wording
>
> Denis Anson wrote:
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > I don't think we want to remove the option of making functionality
> available
> > through add-on assistive technology in a browser.  Some special
features,
> > like speech output, Braille output, or speech recognition are better
> > provided through external programming, since the need for them is
> relatively
> > small compared with the overall marketplace.  Besides, input adaptations
> and
> > output adaptations should be consistent across applications, so are
better
> > provided with external tools rather that having to change strategies
with
> > each program.
>
> For conformance, there's no dependence on other software. There are
> only three possibilities for a checkpoint: you satisfy, you don't, or
> it's not applicable. There's no option for "done by other software".
>
> It may be that ATs do some tasks better, and general UAs have to
> make information available to them. But a tool's conformance must
> be independent of other tools.
>
>  - Ian
>
> > Ian wrote:
> > I'm reading the User Agent Guidelines (a rare treat!). The
> > priority statements are not correct with respect to
> > the recent change in conformance. The current wording
> > (e.g., for Priority 1):
> >
> > <BLOCKQUOTE>
> > This checkpoint must be implemented by user agents
> > as a native feature or through compatibility with
> > assistive technology, otherwise one or more groups
> > of users with disabilities will find it impossible
> > to access information. Satisfying this checkpoint is
> > a basic requirement for some individuals to be
> > able to use the Web.
> > </BLOCKQUOTE>
> >
> > I propose the following change:
> >
> > <BLOCKQUOTE>
> > This checkpoint must be satisfied by user agents as a native feature,
> > otherwise one or more groups of users with disabilities will
> > find it impossible to access information. Satisfying
> > this checkpoint is a basic requirement for
> > some individuals to be able to use the Web.
> > </BLOCKQUOTE>
> >
> >  - Ian
> >
> > --
> > Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
> > Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 09:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:24 UTC