W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2011

RE: ISSUE-82: In the conformance section, should we allow browsers to use extensions to claim conformance.

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:06:20 -0500
To: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group WG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A30C73D76@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi Greg,

While possible, I don’t think your scenario is likely. UAAG 2.0 contains so many other requirements to conform that only a developer with interest in accessibility would likely undertake trying to conform, and then they wouldn’t likely make that kind of claim.

Cheers,
Jan


--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/

Faculty of Design | OCAD University

From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Greg Lowney
Sent: February 3, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-82: In the conformance section, should we allow browsers to use extensions to claim conformance.

And yet, take this scenario:

a) a mainstream Web browser offers ZERO built-in keyboard access, but
b) there's a third-party assistive technology program that adds keyboard access and costs only $1095 (because it's really a screen reader for blind users), so
c) the browser manufacturer lists in their marketing materials that they're UAAG 2.0 Level A Compliant, with a link to a conformance documentation on their Web site, where
d) the full conformance claim on their Web site lists, in the fine print, that it was evaluated along with that assistive technology program.

This might meet the letter but I'm sure it doesn't meet the spirit of our project. At that point, our whole process only helps very determined and knowledgeable readers, and any informal or high-level statement of compliance is essentially meaningless.

How much better things would be if we had separate, trademarked logos or required language that distinguished whether, for a class of disability, the product was compliant out of the box, required configuration, required free add-ons, or required spending more money!

Actually our Conformance section is somewhat ambiguous; would third-party utilities be included in Claim Component 4 ("a browser and extentions or plugins") or Claim Component 8 ("The platform(s) upon which the user agent was evaluated")?

-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: Re: ISSUE-82: In the conformance section, should we allow browsers to  use extensions to claim conformance.
From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com><mailto:chaals@opera.com>
To: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group WG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org><mailto:w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 2/3/2011 11:25 AM

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:50:53 +0100, User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org><mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:


ISSUE-82: In the conformance section, should we allow browsers to use extensions to claim conformance.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/issues/82


Sure. You should be able to claim conformance with any set of stuff that collectively conforms. You just have to identify that set accurately.

cheers

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2011 21:06:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 February 2011 21:06:58 GMT