W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

RE: [HTMLWG] CR Exit Criteria redux

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:28:19 -0700
To: "'Adrian Bateman'" <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011401cd9c2d$db23a4a0$916aede0$@ca>
Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:07 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > I see your point. But I think such a requirement would be
> unacceptable to members of
> > the Accessibility Task Force, who will likely want to submit
> implementation claims
> > based on combinations of totally separate software (a browser and a
> screenreader)
> > and where it's unlikely the implementor of either piece would make a
> submission,
> > let alone both. So I have not added it to the draft CR exit criteria.
> It is unacceptable to Microsoft that anyone other than Microsoft submit
> implementation
> reports for Internet Explorer.

Would browser vendors and other interested parties accept that as part of
any implementation claim they specifically note Accessibility considerations
when relevant?  For example, stating as part of any claim *what* (if
anything) is being exposed to the Accessibility API, (along with possibly
known 3rd party implementations).

For example, feature "foo" has been implemented in 2 independent instances,
and as part of that implementation "bar" is exposed to the AAPI, but no 3rd
party (AT) tool yet supports that feature/exposure. Does it meet the Exit
Criteria test? (If an inspector can verify the claims of AAPI exposure, does
that count?)

Conversely, feature "baz" is exposed to the AAPI, is supported by X number
of known AT tools, but has no native implementation in the browser - does
that count and who reports it?

Just asking questions.

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 21:28:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC