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

Re: 5.2

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 10:59:25 +0100
Message-ID: <003e01c2b0b3$4e8e2c10$0100a8c0@NBRSIWA>
To: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, "'John Slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Roberts" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
To: "'John Slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: 5.2

>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.

Yes this is true. But my example is not a proposal for do this but a request
for change the language expression used. In fact, Windows 98 and Windows XP
are - at least - two different operating systems and an user could consider
that he pass the checkpoint if his content (as in the example, with MSAA) is
shown in two different OS.

>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

There are at least 3 different OS in MS, one "home" version (Win98, ME, XP
Home), one "office version" (NT, 2000, XP Pro), one server Version (NT
Server, 2000 Server, .NET). What we need to explain well is the word
"operating systems" into "independent operating systems", as suggested by

>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

>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.

I think is right the Lisa proposal to use "independent operating system" and
i think it would be best to add a little explanation about what we intend
for "independent operating system":

Recalling a definition of "Operating System":

Here there is an important refer to the "platform":


that bring us to the correct term: "cross-platform"

So we could change the point:

"The content uses technologies, including assistive technologies,  that are
available in multiple implementations for different operating systems."


"The content uses technologies, including assistive technologies,  that are
available in multiple implementations cross-platform application."
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 04:59:29 UTC

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