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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:12:06 +0200
To: "w3c-wai-ua@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Message-ID: <op.wgarugvqwxe0ny@pc-00383.wifihotel.local>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:49:38 +0200, Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.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.

There are two kinds of conformance. The nice, short-hand "we conform to  
double A level" (which gives easy grading, but is overall not very  
relevant to actual users), and "here is a detailed statement of what we  
offer, point by point, even though we don't actually meet any level" (or  
where something only meets level-A, but actually does everything relevant  
to some set of users, from both double- and triple-A as well)...

Since we can't *stop* people making partial conformance claims (W3C  
lacking a police force), and since I would argue that it isn't even a good  
idea to try, we should just call them detailed conformance statements or  
something, and not worry ourselves about explaining *why* something  
doesn't conform.

In the best case, we'll get more information about conformance that will  
help people make better decisions, and implementors will compete across  
the spectrum (much as they do for HTML5 benchmarks and the like) instead  
of stopping at some particular level.

> 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.

Yes, this is important.


> 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

Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 09:12:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 09:12:48 GMT