W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Low-power devices?

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:04:16 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0812011504n150e5d49ia3ec072d4e482d28@mail.gmail.com>
To: mjr@phonecoop.coop
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM, WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org> wrote:

> Name: MJ Ray
> Email: mjr@phonecoop.coop
> Affiliation: Turo Technology LLP
> Document: W2
> Item Number: Introduction
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: question
> Summary of Issue: Low-power devices?
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> 1. Does WCAG 2.0 still include the aim of user-agent independence that WCAG
> 1.0 had?
> 2. Are there some simple statements that I can cite in order to encourage
> webmasters to support cheap low-power devices?  Generally such devices do
> not execute scripting and do not contain proprietary technology like Flash.
>  The main document seems too vague and impractical at first glance and I'm
> somewhat concerned by the non-obvious definition of "web page" to include
> AJAX applications and movies.
> 3. Finally, how have our previous comments on the Candidate Recommendation
> been addressed in the new Proposed Recommendation?
> Proposed Change:
> 1. Reword the introduction to include the WCAG 1.0 phrasing, or note that
> WCAG 2.0 is no longer concerned with user-agent independence.
> 2. Introduce checkpoints similar to those from WCAG 1.0.
> 3. Offer a "comments search" which allows us to find threads from our past
> comments; and actually email commenters back.
Response from the Working Group

1. WCAG 2.0 relies on the concept of accessibility-supported uses of
technologies, that is, techniques used to meet success criteria must work
with the users' browsers, user agents and assistive technologies. However,
the WCAG Working group and the W3C do not specify which or how much support
by assistive technologies there must be for a particular use of a Web
technology in order for it to be classified as accessibility supported,
since different environments will contain different sets of tools.

2. If cheap, low-power devices are included among the users' browsers and
assistive technologies, then conforming content must use techniques that
work with them. If they do not support technologies such as Javascript and
Flash, then those technologies could not be relied upon. However, there is
not an accessibility argument for supporting those specific devices.

3. The archives of the public comments list,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/ , contains a
search feature for searching the archives. The Working Group responded to
your last comments in May, 2007 (see

Could you let us know by Monday, December 8 whether you are satisfied with
our resolutions? If that date is not possible, please reply to this message
indicating when you will be able to respond.

If we do not hear from you by Monday, December 8, we will assume that you
are satisfied with the responses to your comments.

Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 23:04:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:51 UTC