Proposed response to MS06

Here's the proposed response to MS06.*
*
Cheers,
Kim*

Proposed response to MS06**Comment*

The way "a) interact with web content that meets WCAG 2.0" is phrased 
suggeststhat any SC relating to the rendering of content that fails to 
completely meet WCAG 2.0 should be relegated to lower priority levels.


Just as most users expect browsers to make best efforts to render 
content that has errors in its HTML, users expect browsers to make 
reasonable effort to render content that does not fully and accurately 
comply with WCAG. We believe we'd be doing an injustice to say a browser 
is doing its part if it fails to make those efforts.


Aside from this difference, we've reviewed the proposal and generally 
agree with the importance of the a, b, c, d criteria you laid out as 
single A. But it seems that most of our SC's would fit into the criteria 
laid out for A. We decided on which SC's should be AA and AAA by 
balancing the benefit to the user versus the difficulty of 
implementation. The logic behind the levels section is detailed here: 
http://jspellman.github.io/UAAG/UAAG20/#intro-conf-levels


We welcome any specific comments (i.e. SC's you believe are 
mis-categorized, what level you think they should be instead, and why).


Background information
MS06 Comment:


MS06: Setting realistic Level A, AA, and AAA success criteria Assuming 
the working group agrees to narrow the scope of UAAG, we then ask that 
the delineation between the levels to be reexamined. It is our position 
that a browser meeting level A should be able to: a) interact with web 
content that meets WCAG 2.0, and b) facilitate programmatic access of 
the content and its user interface to and from AT, and c) follow the 
accessibility settings from the OS, and d) provide an user interface 
that is generally accessible, such as enabling keyboard control on its 
own features when operating on an environment where keyboard control is 
available, and e) nothing more Level AA should consist of success 
criteria that aid users in case of common content failures and 
predictable solutions are available. Level AAA should consist of success 
criteria that aid users in case of content failures and where 
implementable solutions are available. Microsoft appreciates the 
aspiration of the working group. But it must be understood that the 
final deliverable must be grounded on reality and that implementations 
are necessary for UAAG to be considered for recommendation. We encourage 
the working group to channel its aspiration and creativity elsewhere 
where developers can consult for future-generation-ideas instead of 
cluttering UAAG with unclear, untested, or unrealistic success criteria.

	


Greg's initial response:

If a large portion of the content on the web does not entirely comply 
with WCAG 2.0, I do not feel that user agents should be absolved from 
responsibility for compensating for those deficiencies where the 
techniques for doing so are well understood and reasonable. Of course, 
that is not to say user agents can decide not to take those steps, but 
doing so should have theconsequence of not being able to claim to be as 
fully accessible as users would expect. Just as most users expect 
browsers to make best efforts to render content that has errors in its 
HTML, users will expect browsers to make reasonable effort to render 
content that does not fully and accurately comply with WCAG, and we 
would be doing an injustice to say a browser is doing its part if it 
ails to make those efforts. Of course, the user agent will not be 
faulted for failing to remedy inadequate documents if it simply refuses 
to render them at all. That being said, please point out any specific 
success criteria that you feel are "unclear, untested, or unrealistic", 
or that should be reprioritized from A to AA or AAA; such specific input 
would be more useful than broad generalizations.

gl: which SC are miss-categorized.




-- 
___________________________________________________

Kimberly Patch
President
Redstart Systems, Inc.
(617) 325-3966
kim@redstartsystems.com

www.redstartsystems.com <http://www.redstartsystems.com>
- making speech fly

Blog: Patch on Speech
+Kim Patch
Twitter: RedstartSystems
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________