RE: 5.2

Let's see if we can merge John, Lisa, and Roberto's questions into a
cohesive set.
 
Roberto questions whether Win98/2000/Xp would be considered multiple
operating systems.  This would lead to several problems because the MSAA
is a Microsoft proprietary solution.  That means only people using the
Microsoft platform of operating systems would be able to benefit from
the various assistive technologies that utilize the MSAA.  Therefore,
the individuals on the vast array of other operating systems would fall
to peril of inaccessible web sites.
 
When I use _operating systems_ I use it in the broad sense and not the
singular sense of one version of an operating system being replaced by
another.  We have several versions of the Microsoft operating system and
each provides a different grouping of features.  However, they are based
upon the same operating system - MS-DOS.  Therefore, we have to consider
the base roots when looking at an operating system in the singular
sense.  
 
Typically, a platform is considered the hardware used to house the
operating system.  The operating system is the flavor of the disk
operating system used to allow user input to the platform and run
programs.  That then leaves us with the fact that we can not consider an
upgrade to an operating system as a broad sense of the operating system
concept.
 
In our case with 5.2 an operating system is best explained as either
Microsoft, Macintosh, Unix, or one of the many other proprietary disk
operating systems used in computers today.
 
As for Lisa's suggestion to move interoperability to the level one
success criteria, that can probably be best replied to with the fact
that if we did that then no one would ever meet level one requirements.

 
To grow on John's suggested text and the current 5.2 level two success
criteria let me propose this:
 

*	Technologies and features on the required list used to present
the content meet the following requirements:

*	supported in multiple, independently-developed implementations
of the browsers, user agents, and assistive technologies.
*	supported across multiple operating system platforms (i.e.,
Microsoft, Macintosh, or Unix - not Win98/2000/XP)

*	of at least two such implementations, it is true that the
technologies and features on the required list have been supported by at
least one prior version of the software. (NOTE: this will slow down the
progress to newer technologies because the previous version may not have
supported the newer technology -- this in itself is a good factor to
consider and why this text was proposed, because assistive technologies
are slower to move forward and people may not have the funds to cover
new upgrades.)

I hope this helps.
 
Sincerely,
Donna Hamilton
Personal Assistant for Lee Roberts
President/CEO
405-321-6372
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
http://www.roserockdesign.com 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:56 AM
To: Lee Roberts; 'Lisa Seeman'
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 5.2



    Sorry to be so thick-headed, but I need clarification again: how
does our discussion of 5.2 relate to Web *content*?  I'm asking this
question in hopes of finding a better way to help Web authors who read
our guidelines understand what they're supposed to do.  In other words,
can we phrase the success criterion so as to place stronger emphasis on
content?
 
For example:
"The content uses technologies, including assistive technologies,  that
are available in multiple implementations for different operating
systems."
 
Would this come close?
 
John