W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: RE: RE: RE: Impact Analysis for Guideline 4.2

From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:56:29 -0700
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <9811a9c0a3.9c0a39811a@adobe.com>

> Loretta wrote (in response to Gregg):
> <blockquote>
> I think the screen reader access would need to be provided by the user
> agent for the technology in which you 
> are creating the user interface. So this question would definitely
> affect baseline 
> </blockquote>Hmmm. I don't think I understand this. There seems to be an
> implied separation between the user agent and the screen reader that
> makes the user agent *responsible* somehow for providing screen reader
> functionality? Am I reading that right?

Strictly speaking, from a UAAG conformance claim perspective, the browser/screen reader combination would 
be considered a single User Agent. You would make claims to satisfy the Speech contenet type of UAAG based 
on their combined functionality. But I don't think this implicit inclusion of assistive technology is obvious when 
we refer to user agents, so I have been calling out the assistive technology explicitly.

Section 508 fundamentally requires that the browser/software application provide support for APIs that would 
enable assistive technology to support it. But it doesn't actually require that there exist assistive technology that 
does support it. I think we are suggesting that all pieces of the software chain be considered when selecting 
baseline technologies.
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 04:56:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:39 UTC