W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: UAAG2 ACTION-648 Propose a conformance applicability note...

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:38 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ua@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03AB3A0B@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
I'm not sure.... 

Let's imagine XYZ is a run-time environment that allows the same application to run on various OS's. XYZ has plans to implement an accessibility API, but has not yet shipped this feature. If we bar any user agent built for XYZ from claiming "Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations", then we are saying they should instead simply not conform, no matter how many other accessibility features they include.

On the other hand if we allow "Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations", we let the user agent developer put a foot on the bottom rung of the UAAG conformance ladder while putting at least some kind of public pressure on the platform to improve its platform-level accessibility features.

Cheers,
Jan

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jeanne@w3.org]
> Sent: June-21-12 3:36 PM
> To: Greg Lowney
> Cc: Richards, Jan; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UAAG2 ACTION-648 Propose a conformance applicability note...
> 
> This is a great example that I think we should incorporate into the text.
> 
> On 6/21/2012 4:32 PM, Greg Lowney wrote:
> > This may be a case where we want to use a term other than platform,
> > because we may need to distinguish between aspects of the operating
> > environment, which the app cannot control, from other platform layers
> > that are developer options.
> >
> > For example, take the success criterion that requires exposing
> > information via a platform accessibility API. If the Foo OS doesn't
> > provide such an API then a browser running on it could legitimately
> > claim non-compliance due to platform limitation. However, Windows and
> > OS X *do* provide such an API, so a browser could not claim "platform
> > limitation" even if they base based on a toolkit or runtime library
> > that does not support the API. That's because in the former case, the
> > UA developer has no control over whether or not the platform API
> > exists, but in the latter case the UA developer does have a choice as
> > to which toolkit or runtime library they will use.
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: UAAG2 ACTION-648 Propose a conformance applicability note...
> > From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
> > To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
> > Date: 6/19/2012 7:43 AM
> >> Instead of a conformance applicability note...I propose adding a new
> >> (partial) conformance type:
> >>
> >> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations (Level A, AA, or
> >> AAA) This conformance option may be selected when a user agent is
> >> unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic
> >> limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility
> >> service, monochrome screen). The (optional) explanation of
> >> conformance claim results should explain what platform features are
> missing.
> >>
> >> Adapted from ATAG 2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-levels
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> _______________________________
> Jeanne Spellman
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
> jeanne@w3.org
> 
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 19:51:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 June 2012 19:51:40 GMT