Checkpoint 5.1

Comment 1: 

WWAAC (via David Poulson and Colette Nicolle)
<> ,
4 Nov 2002 

Comments on reviewer's note (about accessibility of protocols).
<> This issue was recently
closed. The note should be removed.

Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002
Sun thinks the mention of protocols is relevant and desireable
(especially when a link also points to an appendix entry that names
protocols that support accessibility). Content providers/developers
ought to be helped by pointing to where they can find more specific
information for ensuring that when they use non-W3C technologies in web
content they are using or choose technologies that have access support
built into them (e.g. Java/Swing, PDF, realtime video, etc.).
IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002

*	Minimum success criteria 

*	items #2 and #3 are not needed here. Checkpoint 5.4 covers
programmatic interfaces.
*	what does it mean in item 3 to use accessibility features if
available? If accessibility features are not available, can I use the
technology or not?
*	in answer to the question asking if protocols are relavant to
this checkpoint, yes "protocols" are relevant and should be included.

*	In Example 2, "Java program" should be "Java applet"

Comments on all three suggestions:
Discussion of specific examples of protocols supporting accessibility
should be used.  Sun's recommendation clearly indicates that a
misunderstanding has occurred here.  Sun's recommendation talks about
presentation technologies and not the underlying protocols used to
deliver the content for presentation.
Protocols are technologies and do include accessibility features.  
IBM presents the idea that Level 1.2 and 1.3 are not needed due to
Checkpoint 5.4.  Ian states that Checkpoints 5.3 and 5.4 should be
combined due to UAAG.
IBM recommends changing "Java program" to "Java applet".  This appears
to assume that the only issues would be with applets and not full-blown
Java programs requiring access to the Web to perform its functions.  Any
program that requires access to the Web provides content and should be
required to meet the accessibility requirements of the WCAG.  Limiting
the requirements to those programs that visually appear inside a web
page limits the effectiveness of the WCAG and could provide grounds for
later debate.
Lee Roberts
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or 
confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for
it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this
in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute,
take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and
it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank
for your compliance.



Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 09:06:21 UTC