- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:02:24 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Loretta, This all seems like things i was expecting except for one aspect. 4.2 was also where we covered "if you create an interface with your content - that goes beyond the users default user agent, then that interface must meet the UAAG specifications" How is this covered? 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 lguarino@adobe.com Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:06 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2 Since the tentative decision of the Working Group is to move the definition of the baseline out of the guidelines, we should write the guidelines assuming that there is a suitably accessible user agent available for content within the baseline. The guidelines should tell an author how to write content that will be accessible under that assumption. We examined GL 4.2 under the above assumptions, and concluded: - The Level 1 Success Criteria should be part of the "guidance on choosing a reasonable baseline" document - The Level 2 Success Criteron either seems to be a duplicate of the rest of the guidelines, or seems to be addressing user agent issues. We are worried that "accessibility conventions" is not well-defined. We recommend dropping this Success Criterion. - At Level 3 - Success Criterion 1 should be part of the conformance claim, since we think that is the appropriate place to declare the baseline - Success Criterion 2 should be covered in the definition of baseline, so that it is clear that technologies beyond the baseline may be used, as long as they degrade gracefully. Techniques that permit graceful degredation should be described in the technology- specific techniques - Success Criterion 3 should be part of the guidance on choosing a reasonable baseline This eliminates all the success criteria for Guideline 4.2, so we think the Guideline should be dropped. We were making some assumptions about other documents, so we decided that we should provide proposals for those changes, as part of this proposal. We are including a proposed definition of baseline, for inclusion in WCAG. We will be proposing modifications to the conformance section, based on this definition, sometime next week. We are also including a proposal for guidance in how to choose a baseline, for inclusion in some non-normative document. ******************************************************* Definition of baseline: The minimum set of technologies that must be supported by user agents in order to access all information and functionality of a Web site. Developers must ensure that all information and functionality of a Web site conforms to WCAG assuming user agents support only this minimum set of technolgies. Developers may also choose to use technologies that are not in the minimum set provided that the following are true: The Web site is still operable using user agents that only support the technologies that are in the minimum set (i.e. the use of technologies that are not in the minimum set does not "break" the Web site for user agents that don't support them.) All site content and function must be available using only the baseline technologies ******************************************* Guide to Choosing Baselines (Non-normative) Whether web content is accessible will depend on the User Agent(s) available to render the web content for the user. [reference to UAAG glossary, User agent definition] The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines [ref] describe the requirements that will lower barriers to accessibility. For web content to be accessible, users need an accessible user agent for rendering that content. Choosing technology that is appropriate for use in accessible content depends on knowledge of your audience and what user agents they can be expected to have. In some circumstances, you may have very accurate information about your audience and may know exactly what can be assumed. For instance, you may be developing content that will be used only within a company where the users can be provided with the user agents that they need. In other circumstances, you may only have statistical information about what your audience is likely to have available. In all cases, assume that your audience contains people with disabilities. The capabilities of user agents change over time. Newer versions of a user agent may meet more of the requirements of UAAG than older versions, or they may render a wider range of technologies. The capabilities of user agents available in different languages and geographic regions can also vary widely. Choosing baseline technologies is a decision based on what user agent support you can assume in your audience at the time the baseline is defined. When making the baseline decision, consider the following factors. 1. How well does a user agent satisfy the requirements of UAAG for a technology? The proper source of this information will be a UAAG conformance statement for the user agent. The UAAG working group also lists draft information about some user agents on its web site. 2. What technologies does a user agent support? e.g. what version of HTML? of XHTML? of CSS? of PDF? of Flash? etc. (This information should be available from the user agent vendor.) 3. Which versions of assistive technology products work with the user agent? Which technologies are supported by the assistive technology, e.g., does it support JavaScript? (This information should be available from the assistive technology vendor.) 4. For which platforms and operating systems is a user agent available for a technology? Windows, Mac, Unix? Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows ME, Win98, Win 95, etc. Do operating system Service Packs affect the accessibility of the user agent? 5. Is a user agent available in all the languages used by the audience? Is it available in the language of the content? 6. What version of a user agent is your audience using? Users don't always upgrade to newer versions of user agents, or may not do so immediately. 7. If a user agent exists, is its cost likely to be prohibitive for the audience, making it effectively unavailable? 8. If support for a technology by a user agent depends upon optional software such as a plug-in, how difficult is it for users to obtain the extension? Will they be prompted to install the software automatically if they try to use it? Do you need to provide a link to the plug-in as part of the content? 9. Does the technology have an open standard or a public specification? An appropriate baseline for accessible web content will make a conservative choice to ensure that users will have accessible user agents for rendering the web content. However, this does not prohibit the use of other technologies, as long as they are used in such a way that user agents that suppport only the technologies in the baseline can still render the content accessibly.
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 01:02:30 UTC