W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2007

UAAG Guideline 8 Gaps

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:37:12 -0400
Message-ID: <472B7C68.9090009@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-UA list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>

As per another one of my action items from Oct. 25 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007OctDec/0018.html):


8.1 Implement accessibility features (P1)
- ATAG 2.0 has a concept of "Benchmarked Technologies" that could come 
in very handy here: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071028/WD-ATAG20-20071028.html#conf-benchmark
- Basically, browsers would be free to execute/render/play any 
technology they wished, but would self-report what they considered to be 
an accessibility feature of a technology according to a particular Web 
content accessibility standard (i.e. WCAG or similar). If they missed 
something big, it could be picked up on by critics.
- IMPORTANT NOTE: Currently an ATAG 2.0 Technology Benchmark is a 
compilation of "techniques for meeting the normative requirements [of 
the standard]" and does not distinguish between (1) techniques that 
simply avoid problems (e.g. nesting headers properly) and (2) techniques 
that call on "accessibility features" (e.g., Add "alt-text" in HTML4 to 
an image). Only (2) is relevant in this UAAG context.


8.2 Conform to specifications (P2)
- I wonder if this is required at all, because it seems to say a company 
can't build a browser for any content technology it wants to. I'd much 
prefer a UAAG conformance to mean a browser has done the best it can 
with what it got.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 19:37:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:50 GMT