- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:48:39 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <auto-000162121744@spamarrest.com>
Here is a writeup on the Baseline approach for inclusion in the guidelines - so we can get feedback. Thanks to Wendy, Ben and Jason for help [START OF EDITOR'S NOTE] Editor's Note - Baseline Technologies Assumption In working on WCAG 2.0, the WCAG Working Group continues to struggle with the role of content authors and the role of user agents in making Web content accessible to people with disabilities. In WCAG 1.0 we identified shortcomings in user agents and created guidelines with phrases like, "until user agents.". Today, many of the same issues continue to exist but we are looking for a more effective mechanism to address them than creating temporary bridge guidelines to make up for user agent shortcomings. One way of doing this would be to write the guidelines based on an assumption of a baseline user agent. We are currently considering using user agents that conform to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 as the baseline User Agent for WCAG 2.0. That is, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines would be written assuming that all users had user agents that conform to all of the Priority 1 Checkpoints from the User Agent Accessibility Guideline 1.0 (UAAG 1.0). This has many implications. (For example, WCAG 2.0 would assume that user agents can toggle scripts on and off.) Today, no single user agent meets all of the UAAG 1.0 Priority 1 Checkpoints. If WCAG 2.0 adopts an assumption that user agents conform to UAAG 1.0 Priority 1 Checkpoints, there would be some shortfall between Web content that meets WCAG 2.0 and currently available user agents. To address this shortfall, we propose to take two measures. 1) Press hard for the development of user agents that conform to all Priority 1 Checkpoints of UAAG 1.0 2) To develop a set of "repair techniques" that could be used by content authors who would like to create content that not only meets WCAG 2.0, but which also makes up for the shortfall in current user agents. We would also like to work with the UAAG and ATAG groups to come up with a set of strategies that user agent manufacturers could build into their user agents to help make up for common shortcomings of page authors. The result would be a more stable WCAG 2.0 as well as better integration with UAAG to put the responsibility for the appropriate parts of the accessibility issue on the appropriate parts of the Web technologies (user agents versus Web content). Refer to Interdependent Components of Web Accessibility for more information. The WCAG Working Group is analyzing this approach to better understand how it might affect users. The guidelines and success criteria in this Working Draft does not yet reflect this direction. The WCAG WG invites you to comment on this approach and the related issues. [END OF EDITOR'S NOTE] Gregg ------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/ <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 05:48:45 UTC