Re: ATAG 2.0's "Web Content Accessibility Benchmark" and WCAG 2.0's "Accessibility Supported"

Hi Christophe,

I agree. "Technology" isn't linked down to the definition anywhere, 
although it does appear.

Also, including API in the definition causes some weird effects, such as 
  the following excerpt:

"This means that either the technology implements and tests 
accessibility APIs that are required in order for the users' assistive 
technology to make the technology accessible

If API is switched in for Technology you get "the API implements and 
tests accessibility APIs".

Cheers,
Jan

PS: I'm CC'ing Michael Cooper so that your comment makes it back to the 
WCAG-WG where it can have an effect.



Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> At 16:59 19/06/2007, Jan Richards wrote:
> 
>> On yesterday's AUWG call I took an action item to consider how ATAG 
>> 2.0's "Web Content Accessibility Benchmark" relates to WCAG 2.0's 
>> "Accessibility Supported".
>>
>> URLs:
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070615/WD-ATAG20-20070615.html#conf-benchmark 
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#accessibility-support
>>
>>
>> NOTE: I will use "technology/content-type" since these different terms 
>> are used in pretty much the same way (more on that later).
>>
>>
>> SOME INTERESTING PARALLELS:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> POSSIBILITIES FOR SYNCHRONIZATION:
>>
>> 1. ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 should use a common term for 
>> technology/content-type. AUWG's problem with the current WCAG 2.0 
>> definition of "technology" ("markup language, programming language, 
>> style sheet, data format, or API ") is the appearance of the term 
>> "API" in the list. For the record, ATAG 2.0's current definition of 
>> "content-type" is "A data format, programming or markup language that 
>> is intended to be retrieved and rendered by a user agent (e.g., HTML, 
>> CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, JavaScript or combinations).".
> 
> Two notes about the definition of "technology" in WCAG 2.0:
> * the glossary entry is not referenced from anywhere else in the 
> document, so it doesn't follow the "style guide";
> * the definition is actually an enumeration instead of a proper 
> definition, so we need something else.
> 
> Maybe WCAG could take "API" out of the definition of "technology", and 
> say "technology" or "technology and/or API" in the rest of the document 
> depending on which is the intended meaning in the context.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Christophe
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:28:16 UTC