Checkpoint 5.3

Ian Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002
The provisions of this checkpoint are not verifiable. Instead, these
design goals are XAG design goals and should be manifest in that
specification (though in more concrete terms). Perhaps this is the
checkpoint that should read "Use formats that conform to XAG."

The requirements of Checkpoint 5.3 require device-independence,
inclusion of accessibility features, require publicly documented
interfaces for accessibility, and require the use of the operating
system for certain applications.
I'm not an expert on XAG, but my concern is that XAG is only a
supporting specification of the WCAG that deals with XML and some of the
other standards.  Standard markups and CSS do not fall within the XAG
area of responsibility.  If a developer is not using XML they would have
no reason to look for information inside XAG for specifications or
requirements.  Requiring a developer that is only working with HTML and
CSS to meet the requirements of XAG will only chase people away because
they would consider the information "not relevant" to their particular
Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002
How about, "Choose technologies that programmatically support, expose,
and make possible building content that meets the WCAG." Although, it is
hard to tell exactly what this checkpoint applies to. Perhaps it would
be better to put the jist of this feedback (structure and content must
be programmatically available to an AT) into Guideline 5's wording or
into 5.1 or 5.4
(via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002

This is an important consideration but should not be a checkpoint. If
you meet all the checkpoints, then you have obviously done this. If you
haven't, then what difference does this make?
(via Audrey Weinland), 31 Oct 2002 

*	The baseline AT needs to be defined. Otherwise it's too
difficult to figure out which AT to support.
*	minimum level #1 subpoint #3: Not sure what this means. What are
publicly documented interfaces?
*	minimum level #1 subpoint #5: Not sure what this means. Please

Sun's recommendation provides some insight into issues that would
otherwise be left open.  I recommend we use their wording, "Choose
technologies that programmatically support, expose, and make possible
building content that meets the WCAG."  This would then require the
following elements be clearly expressed:  
1.  device-independence (Checkpoint 2.1 defines character input, but
does not specifically require non-character input as in other methods of
navigation used by disabled persons - designers typically do not
consider mouse inputs as character inputs because they are not
associated with keyboards and speech navigation is clearly not
understood as a character input), 
2.  include accessibility features (this would require that applets,
PDF's, Flash, and any other technology that comes along to meet the
requirements of this checkpoint),
3.  have publicly documented interfaces for interoperability (this would
require action on two parts - first the developer of the technology to
provide documentation on how to develop with accessibility in mind, and
then the part of the designer using the technology with the
accessibility features in mind)
4.  make use of operating system accessibility features (either directly
or via the user agent) supported by assistive technologies in the
natural language(s) of the content (this would require that the designer
ensure the technology being used is supported in the natural language of
the content, thereby ensuring that the disabled population related to
that natural language can utilize the content),
5.  are implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural
language(s) of the content ***** this point can be deleted because it is
clearly required by subpoint 4.
Lee Roberts
Rose Rock Design, Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 09:54:27 UTC