Re: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)

charles, i was inferring that there are major corporations that are
specifying or designed for this speciofic browser and version and this is
normally netscape and IE.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Robert Neff" <robneff@home.com>
Cc: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>; "Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: SSL Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG
2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)


> I don't think that it is OK to say "you have to have IE or netscape to use
> SSL". Apart from anything else, it just isn't true. (Similarly,
> http://www.mbta.com excludes browsers other than those two on the grounds
> that CSS and javascript are required. Even if those browsers have CS and
> Javascript deactivated. And it excludes Opera 5.0, which has fine CSS and
> Javascript support).
>
> On the other hand, I think SSL is a requirement that it is reasonable to
make
> on a browser - it is now widely available (Lynx, iCab, IE, Netscape, Opera
> all provide it and I believe there are others as well).
>
> cheers
>
> Charles McCN
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Robert Neff wrote:
> [other comments snipped]
>   comment on 'Guideline 4: Compatibility.'
>   how are we handling companies that have made a concious effort to set a
>   minimum standard for browser compatibiltiy?  these decisions are
normally
>   driven by cost and security - especially where secure socket layer is
used
>   (SSL).  do we have an alternate method for people to access information?
do
>   we need to address security here and state that there may be overidding
>   reasons and justifications where a call center may not be avaialble to
help
>   someone.
>
>   overall my i think this is a great step forward and need to look at teh
cost
>   impact and help those people who do not have the funds nor technical
means
>   available to satisfy each line item in the quideline.
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
>   To: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>   Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 12:56 AM
>   Subject: Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG
2.0
>   to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)
>
>
>   > Lest I be accused of having become a polemicist, I would here like to
>   > amplify my own proposal a little more, though it is still very much in
the
>   > form of an outline:
>   >
>   > Guideline 1: Device-independence.
>   >
>   > 1.1 Text equivalents.
>   > 1.2 Synchronization of text equivalents with auditory/visual content.
>   > 1.3 Auditory descriptions.
>   > 1.4 Exposure of structural and semantic distinctions in markup or in a
>   > data model.
>   > 1.5 Logical separation of content and structure from presentation.
>   > 1.6 Device-independence of input event handlers.
>   >
>   > Guideline 2: Design content to facilitate browsing, navigation and
user
>   > interaction.
>   > 2.1 Consistent interaction/navigation mechanisms.
>   > 2.2 Avoid content that interferes with the user's ability to navigate.
>   > 2.3 Provide user control over time-based events or content that
introduces
>   > unexpected changes in context.
>   > 2.4 Provide a range of search options for various skill levels and
>   > preferences.
>   >
>   > Guideline 3: Design content for ease of comprehension.
>   > 3.1 Consistency of presentation.
>   > 3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation.
>   > 3.3 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate to the content.
>   > 3.4 Use auditory/graphical presentations where these facilitate
>   > comprehension.
>   > 3.5 Summarize complex or highly structured information.
>   > 3.6 Define key terms.
>   > 3.7 Provide structures that divide information into small, logically
>   > organised units.
>   >
>   > Guideline 4: Compatibility.
>   > 4.1 Use markup and style languages, API's and protocols in accordance
with
>   > applicable specifications.
>   > 4.2 Ensure that content is compatible with assistive technologies and
>   > that, so far as is practicable, it is backward compatible.
>   >
>   >
>   > Here, I have incorporated what I regard as the best and most
innovative of
>   > Wendy's ideas into what I hope is a better organised structure. One
point
>   > worth noting is that, instead of requiring the use of style languages
as
>   > such, I have made the more general point that structure/semantics
should
>   > be represented separately from presentation, whether this be achieved
by
>   > way of a style language, or by, for example, alternative versions of
the
>   > content (for example, a structural tree which is logically distinct
from,
>   > and provided along side of, page descriptions, as in PDF, or XSL with
the
>   > ROLE and SOURCE attributes). The direct reference to style languages
is,
>   > perhaps, more specific than is necessary to specify the requirement.
>   >
>   > I welcome comments, polemics and, above all, thoughtful suggestions.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
> --
> 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
> until 6 January 2001 at:
> W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France
>

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2001 22:59:13 UTC