- From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:08:03 -0900
- To: "Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)" <Lisa@UBaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Lisa and Group - Are you (Lisa) referring to Checkpoint 5.2 that reads, "Design for backward compatibility"? Have you paraphrased the wording? I am a little confused but what else is new! In response to your comments about varying (different) operating systems, I have some concerns as you do but also feel that we cannot easily control all the possible scenarios. For example, if a web author/designer developed a site that was accessible via, let's say, Internet Explorer (Microsoft) and someone using JAWS (as an example) could access the site - the site is accessible to that particular user. Now, let's say someone is using Mystery OS 105.3 (a pretend operating system) and Internet Explorer and they can visually access the same site as per above but there is no screen reader for the operating system (Mystery 105.3). Is this site now considered to be inaccessible? Is this the concern that you posed to the group? If this is the concern (or at least is part of the concern) then we have some real life issues and a lot of not so friendly cross-platform operating system barriers in our way of achieving universal accessibility. It seems that the question, as posed, crosses over into the user agent group and maybe deeper than that alone. Guess my main question is - did I understand at least in part what you were getting at? My question is this: Where does the responsibility lie when it comes to developing applications for one platform or another that would (if developed) make web pages accessible on all presently available (and, ideally future) platforms? In my mind, this is a very difficult question to even start to respond to and I am not sure that it's even close to where you were coming from. But, there are so many "real life" scenarios that fall into this particular void. I'd be very interested to hear responses from others. Lisa, thanks for your post - if I got it right, an interesting set of questions. Doyle Burnett -- Doyle Burnett Education Specialist Multiple Disabilities Program 907-562-7372 > From: Lisa Seeman <Lisa@UBaccess.com> (by way of Wendy A Chisholm > <wendy@w3.org>) > Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:03:18 -0500 > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: 5.2 > Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:58:24 -0500 (EST) > > > > > I have a concern, with Checkpoint 5.2 - Ensure that technologies relied > upon by the content are declared and widely available. > > The success criteria makes no mention of technologies that can only be used > on specific operating systems. > > At present we require that technologies and features on the required list > are available in at least two independently-developed implementations. But > no mention of weather it is possible to develop applications for other > platforms. > > What if they are only supportable one a specific platform? In other works if > a web author choses to use a technologies that can only be accessible on > Lynix or can only be accessible to user agents run on Microsoft - surely > that can not be considered accessible. > This is even more the case when the operating system required is not free. > It must be an undue burden on the end user to expect him/her to buy a new > operating system to view your site > > I recommend that all technologies should be supportable on any operating > system, and that that should be a level one requirement. > > Should we also specify that the independently-developed implementations are > not themselves dependent on the same proprietary , restricted (non-free) > components? > > all the best > > Lisa > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 13:07:47 UTC