RE: 5.2

The reasoning for two independent implementations was to limit the
concept that one group would benefit while another would not.  At least
that was my goal when Jason and I proposed this wording.

There was to be included a segment that stated that no one could claim
an accessible status if they required tools that were built upon the
same engine.  Therefore, any tool using the Internet Explorer engine
would have to be considered when the other tool used the same engine.  

It was also pointed out that there is only one user agent that supports
the MSAA required by Flash MX.  I believe that was Window-Eyes.
Therefore, any site that wanted to claim an accessible status using
Flash MX would not be able to do such.  At least until another user
agent provided the access for Flash MX and did not require the MSAA or
the Internet Explorer engine.

(NOTE: not trying to pick on Flash)

Sincerely,
Lee Roberts
President/CEO
405-321-6372
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
http://www.roserockdesign.com
 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:53 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 5.2






A few clarifications:
I am referring to 5.2 in http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/

checkpoint 5.2 reads:
Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are declared and
widely available.

success criteria level two reads:
Technologies and features on the required list are available in at least
two independently-developed implementations.


Now what is happening is people are claiming accessibility based on
technologies that can only be used on the windows/intel platform, and
assistive technologies that do not run on window, can not, with all the
will in the world, provide support.

  I see a big difference hear between developing based on a free
download, or even a none non-free application, and developing for, say,
only IBM with windows. (hay I use IBM and windows, but that is not the
point)

Part of the difference is that the user can get a new user agent a lot
easer then he can sell his mac and buy an IBM.
  But the BIG  difference  is that developers of assistive technology
for other  platforms are barred from developing support. The do not have
the API's. They can not do it.

It seems to me that this allows potential monopolies, and such games to
be played in the assistive technology/platform market.

I think that it is  the disabled who will pay the price.

Any standard that are relied on for fulfillment of these guidelines must
be open and usable on more then one, independently owned,  platform.

Lisa

Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 13:19:04 UTC