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

Re: "Checkpoint applicability", "Native support", etc.

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:15:48 -0400
Message-ID: <399ACC44.E71FE682@w3.org>
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
CC: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> This memo is my response to Jon Gunderson's comments [1] on my comments on
> my comments [2]. Jon Gunderson's comments [1] are snipped and then also
> included in the Appendix in a slightly reformatted form.
> 
> 1. How Does It Help?
> 
> Jon wrote:
> 
> "I am not sure about the topic of "features for people disabilities versus
> features for people without disabilities" in this section.   What does this
> add to the discussion of applicability?"
> 
> I am still thinking through the implications of emphasizing the distinction
> between primary capabilities and secondary capabilities. I now see that
> following my suggestion of a few days ago in [2] without making other
> adjustments in the document may allow too much of a loop-hole. The essential
> piece of my Applicability section in [2] was:
> 
> "A checkpoint is applicable if it requires capabilities that are intended
> for users without any disability who using the user agent under 'standard
> conditions'."
> 
> I plan to return to this issue in another memo.

As I mentioned earlier, I think this is incomplete since UAAG
makes some requirements that are applicable and that
are meant for users with disabilities (e.g., implementation
of the DOM).

 - Ian
-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2000 13:15:54 GMT

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