W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Some discussion points for issue 294

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:54:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3992357C.90A0A664@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, tantek@cs.stanford.edu
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1. The definition of native support  is too strcit - if a plug-in is
> required, or certain  modules of a modular package, then conformance should
> be determined for the package of things required. The point is just to be
> clear about what it is for which conformance is claimed.

That does seem more flexible to me, but I have heard people argue that
accessibility through add-ons and plug-ins was not acceptable (I'm not
quoting anyone on that, however). Are there people in the WG who feel
that the browser must conform 
  a) without the possibility of adding software to some "core" user
     agent (if such a thing exists), and
  b) conformance must be based on default settings (for those parts
     of conformance that are configurable)?
      
> 2. Being able to install something accessibly is already a requirement. There
> is no reason to differentiate further based on whether that is via CD, web,
> or punch cards - the accessibility criterion is a checkpoint, and cost is an
> implementation detail.

Yes, I agree. 

 - Ian

> Chaals
> 
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 
>   Hello,
> 
>   Issue 294 [1] (raised by Tantek Çelik, cc'd here) is about the scope
>   of "native support" and its relation to dynamic updates to software.
>   Does the definition of native support allow the user agent
>   to download modules (that will promote accessibility) from the Web?
>   Here is the relevant excerpt from the 28 July Guidelines [2]
>   definition of native support:
> 
>   <BLOCKQUOTE>
>      A user agent supports a feature natively if it
>      does not require another piece of software (e.g.,
>      plug-in or external program) for support.
>      Operating system features adopted by the
>      user agent to meet the requirements of this
>      document are considered part of native support. ...
>   </BLOCKQUOTE>
> 
>   As is, the definition seems to clearly indicate that downloadable
>   modules could not be considered native. Here are some notes
>   on the topic for our discussion this week:
> 
>   1) Does native support require that a feature be part of
>      the user agent by default? If a user agent feature that
>      promotes accessibility is available on the install CD
>      but is not installed by default, does that mean that
>      it is not supported natively? If "by default" is considered
>      part of native support, the document needs to say so.
> 
>   2) (This point is important for those who think that native
>      support does not imply "available by default"): What's the
>      difference between installing from the Web and installing
>      from a CD?
> 
>   3) Jon Gunderson and others have pointed out that users cannot
>      always install new software or features or modules (e.g., when
>      they work in a public environment such as a library). This
>      argument is not limited to accessibility issues: a user agent
>      may be unusable for any number of reasons related to lack of
>      resources. It's the responsibility of the systems team in this
>      particular case to ensure that the software is usable. Does this
>      mean that it's inacceptable to say "get these modules from the
>      Web" just because some users don't have access privileges to
>      install those modules? I don't think that that's an accessibility
>      issue.
> 
>   4) If the UA includes a documented feature that allows users
>      to get and install modules that provide accessibility features
>      at the "click of a button", would that count as native support?
>      What if this is used as a way to get accessibility features into
>      deployed browsers (rather than having to wait for a new release)?
> 
>   5) If downloading modules is considered acceptable in some
>      circumstances, the UA must already be accessible enough
>      to allow users to  download those modules.
> 
>    - Ian
> 
> 
>   [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#294
>   [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000728
>   --
>   Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>   Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>   Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> 
> 
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 00:54:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT