- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:40:55 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
how does this work when the natural language of the site does not have adequate user agent support? All the best, Lisa Seeman UnBounded Access Widen the World Web lisa@ubaccess.com <mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com> www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233 Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Cynthia Shelly (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>) Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:41 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Redraft of 5.3 Here is my redraft of checkpoint 5.3. I've attempted to incorporate Lee's feedback (which included analysis of feedback from a bunch of other people including Ian). This draft uses more complicated language than the last, but I think it makes the intentions more clear. It's still a little rough, and I'd be happy to get feedback on both the substance and the language. I've added a link to UAAG as a success criteria at every level. These would be defined as UAAG profiles. We might not need to define a profile for every level, but I'd like to leave the option open. I think this gets rid of the need for 5.4, as the UAAG link was the only piece of 5.4 that wasn't redundant to some other part of the guidelines. I still have an action item to make sure that the guidelines cover interactive content properly, but assuming they do, 5.4 can go away. 1a may seem obvious, and is in fact self-referential. I think that it adds a level of clarity for human readers. Since this document is intended for human, not machine reading, I'm not bothered by the self-reference. I'd like to hear what others think about this one in particular. I added the level 2 requirement that the author be able to specify the data to pass through to access tools. This would be things like specifying what letter to use for the shortcut, or which text to read out. I'm not sure this is necessary, but it does make it easier for the author to design a usable alternative interface. The text of the checkpoint itself and the informative benefits section are unchanged. So, here it is... Checkpoint 5.3 Choose technologies that are designed to support accessibility. Success criteria You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at the Minimum Level if: 1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen a). allows the author/programmer to meet the other requirements of these guidelines. For example, the technology supports device independent event handling and has a mechanism for specifying text equivalents. b) provides a mechanism for the author/programmer to make use of the accessibility interfaces of the host operating system. This may be done via a user agent. c) has publicly documented interfaces for interoperability d) is implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural language of the content e) interoperates with assistive technologies in the natural language(s) of the content. This may be achieved by use of accessibility interfaces in the host operating system. 2) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to definition] meets UAAG at (insert level) You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 2 if: 1) the technology or combination of technologies chosen allows the author/programmer to specify what data is to be passed through to the operating system accessibility interfaces 2) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to definition] meets UAAG at (insert level) You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 3 if: 1) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to definition] meets UAAG at (insert level) The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension: (presently no additional criteria for this level.) Benefits (informative) Authors who utilize technologies designed to support accessibility will: encounter fewer challenges when implementing these guidelines avoid the need to create custom solutions and workarounds to address accessibility concerns avoid the need to provide accessible alternate versions for content rendered in a technology that does not fully address these guidelines
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 09:41:08 UTC