Sv: Vs: Baseline capabilities

Hi,

I am not sure wich of the d2 approaches we should go for. One thing we should be sure of is that we make it clear that this is an urgent requirement, but of course it is close to beeing outside WAI area, especially when it comes to standard applications. It would be prefferable if localization strategies could be part of the different accessability application guidelines provided by MS IBM and SUN, to take the currently biggerst players. Finally I do not know how the emerging big Open Source companies go about localizing there products. Obviously Open Source should in theory make this easier, but it depends on how it is coordinated, too little or vague a structure does not serve as any good.

Regards

Claus Thoegersen
Center for Blind and Visually Impaired Students
University of Aarhus
DK-8000 Aarhus C
Denmark
Phone +(45) 8942 23 71.
Email scsct@mail.hum.au.dk
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
To: Claus Thøgersen <thoeg@get2net.dk>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: Vs: Baseline capabilities


Claus,

good points.

There seem to be two possible approaches. One is that we require
demonstration that the products can be localised. Another approach would be
to phrase the question "is technology X available in language Y". 

The first approach places a higher burden on the speakers of a particular
language to actually ensure that a product is localised, but that may be
beyond their control even when it is possible for it to be localised. For
example, I believe that most Microsoft products can be localised, but because
they don't release the source code and do it in houose, there is nothing
available until they have localised it. 

The second approach means that we can be a bit surer that people have access
to the software in the relevant language, but requires more tracking since
everything becomes seperated by language, and may bring up issues of
localisation effectiveness - I use a german web browser that has an english
language interface, but unfortunately there is no english language help
documentation yet.

What do people think?

Does anyone have any thoughts on which is the better approach?

cheers

Charles

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Claus Thøgersen wrote:

  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Claus Thøgersen <thoeg@get2net.dk>
  To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
  Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:18 AM
  Subject: Sv: Baseline capabilities
  
  
  
  A technology is considered to be sufficiently implemented when it is
  implemented in at least two free products available that meet the following
  conditions:
  
  1. There must betwo such products available for each of
  
      - Windows 95
      - Windows 2000
      - MacOS 8+
      - Unix (must include linux)
  
  2. They must be known to be usable with at least two speech output systems,
  including one free one where that is available.
  
  Proposed addition 
  B: Both systems must be shown to be designed so they can be localized into different languages.
  
  3. They must work with standard keyboard modifications (including modified
  keyboards) and one voice input system.
  
  4. The products must have been available for at least 6 months.
  
  Here again there are special cases with regards to localization. Does the 6 months have to be drawn from the first often US release of a technology or a product or from the release date of the first localized version of that product??
  
  Regards
  
  Claus Thøgersen
  
  
  
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2000 18:24:58 UTC