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

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

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:15:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+=z1W=2-subWixrvqYg=bM705ZbO3jdbgrVSb32v6pMj8kPLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: "w3c-wai-ua@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
I like Jan's and Chaals' reasoning. UAAG10 would have looked much better
with partial/detailed claims. We had lots of implementations in lots of
areas, but never all implementations in 1 browser.

Jim

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:49:38 +0200, Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
> wrote:
>
>  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
>
>
>  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<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 franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg kan noen norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>
>


-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 22:16:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 22:16:21 GMT