RE: 5.2

Suggestion: if "idependent implementations" *actually means* "on different
operating systems and/or hardware platforms," then that's what the
checkpoint and the success criterion should say-- flat out, with no room for
misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

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: Lisa Seeman [mailto:Lisa@UBaccess.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:14 pm
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doyle" <dburnett@sesa.org>
To: "Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>)"
<Lisa@UBaccess.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: 5.2


 >
 > 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 Friday, 20 December 2002 09:45:37 UTC