re: skill level

mistakenly sent this only to kynn and not to the list earlier today...

aloha, kynn!

your hypothetical tool, which was created for a niche market (in this case,
users with no usable vision), would fail to comply to ATAG...

this is the same debate that recently raged in the User Agent Working Group --
if a browser is targeted towards a certain niche market, should it be exempt
from the checkpoints that cover interoperability and anything else that the
developers believe do not pertain to their products...

the answer is clearly and definitively, NO!!!

ATAG, like UAGL, address the base functionality for a certain classes of tools,
and if a developer wants to selectively pick and choose from the ATAG or UAGL
checkpoints, then he or she is free to do so -- they just can't claim
compliance at any level...

in that respect, the issue you raised is similar to that raised by bruce -- we
can't control what use people make of ATAG, but we can clearly articulate what
constitutes quote proper unquote use of the document and make the intent and
import of the checkpoints as clear as possible...


Kynn asked:
>Dumb question, if I'm someone who works extensively in the field of
>software for users who are visually impaired, and I make a special
>purpose authoring tool for someone who can't see -- which relies 
>on extensive aural cues (and doesn't work that well with a braille
>terminal) -- have I met your goal or not met your goal?  It can be
>used by (some) PWDs, but not all PWDs; is it therefore an invalid
>tool according to our ATAG?
>I forget, did we answer this?  If so, feel free to refer me back to
>the archives or summarize an answer, we have enough stuff to worry
>about at present if this has been covered.
He that lives on Hope, dies farting
     -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
Gregory J. Rosmaita <>
   WebMaster and Minister of Propaganda, VICUG NYC

Received on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 17:00:49 UTC