W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: 5.2

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:08:11 -0800
To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c2a7a2$c3effa20$5f814094@rose>

Both JAWS and Window-Eyes use the Internet Explorer engine.  That means
that there, in fact, is only one implementation.  That also means that
only persons using Windows would be able to access the information.
With that fact we are forcing people to use a specific operating system
as Lisa was pointing out.

Therefore, it would not be conceivable to say that the site is
accessible when, with all due respect, it is not and probably never
would be.  To turn around and say that a person now has to purchase a
Windows operating system to browse the Internet then gives some
organizations the right to demand that a person follow their precepts to
use their site.  That, again, is inaccessible.

Even with all the people in the world that use Windows/IBM Clone
systems, there are still a large part of the population that uses other
systems like Mac and all the flavors of *nix.  We are basically telling
them that unless they move to a Windows operating system we will not
allow them to use the Internet.

By requiring that there be two independent implementations, we are
stating that we do not care what operating system the person is on or
what user agent they choose to use.  What we are requiring is that
people become aware of the facts the user agents are built upon.  Flash,
only as a good example, will never be accessible until separate
implementations of the accessibility features are supported without
using Windows.

Lee Roberts
Rose Rock Design, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of john_slatin
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:39 AM
To: 'Lee Roberts'; WCAG List
Subject: RE: 5.2

I'm not sure I understand this, Lee.  JAWS 4.5 supports Flash MX through
MSAA; so does Window-Eyes, a competing product.  Flash MX includes
features designed to support accessibility.  Are you saying that a
developer who uses Flash MX cannot make a conformance claim even if the
Flash content is accessible to people who are using both Window-Eyes and

If this is in fact what we're saying, it worries me-- it sounds like we
might be raising the bar to an impossible height.


John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station G9600
FAC 248C
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:18 pm
To: WCAG List
Subject: 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)

Lee Roberts
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 14:08:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:10 UTC