- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:51:47 -0500
- To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
1) How about adding freely available. Or generally available. <propose> At least one [freely / generally] available version of a user agent capable of accessing the content conforms, at a minimum, to Level A of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines. </propose> 2) I think we pointed to those sections of UAAG on purpose since there are other parts that did not apply. So I don't think we can decouple. But Wendy can comment on this more exactly. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:50 AM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: Issues with guideline 4.2 I note the following major shortcomings in guideline 4.2 (partial proposals are included). 1. Guideline 4.2 says "at least one plug-in". There are two problems here. First, it applies only to "plug-ins", thereby assuming an HTML-centric world in which other technologies are supported by "plug-ins". Secondly, "at least one" could be interpreted to mean that if two plug-ins are required to access the content and one of them meets UAAG, then guideline 4.2 is satisfied. Since the UAAG definition of "user agent" includes plug-ins as a special case I suggest: <propose> At least one version of a user agent capable of accessing the content conforms, at a minimum, to Level A of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines. </propose> 2. As currently worded, guideline 4.2 refers to UAAG 1.0 specifically. If UAAG is updated, then this dependency would become out of date and could not be changed without revising WCAG 2.0. This is a similar problem to that which the authoring tools group has encountered in referring to WCAG 1.0 - the next version of ATAG will be designed not to depend on any specific version of WCAG. I propose that for purposes of guideline 4.2, UAAG should mean "The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, or any later version". That is, the developer of WCAG 2.0-conformant content can choose which version of UAAG to use in assessing whether the requirement of guideline 4.2 is met. This attempt to decouple WCAG 2.0 from a specific version of UAAG might entail the deletion of items (a)-(i) under guideline 4.2, as these might change in a future version of UAAG. In general, the issue of how to refer to UAAG needs to be considered more closely so that changes in UAAG do not require WCAG to be updated.
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2004 12:51:50 UTC