RE: 5.2

Thanks, Lee.  That was a really clear explanation and I appreciate it!

John

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 3:08 pm
To: 'john_slatin'; 'WCAG List'
Subject: RE: 5.2


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.

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 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 JAWS?

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

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)

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

Received on Thursday, 19 December 2002 17:16:34 UTC