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

Re: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:18:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0504271710440.30555@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> [1] Definition of baseline:
> <proposal>
> The minimum set of technologies that must be supported by user agents

so that people can use and gain access to all the information and 
functions of the Web content.

> Developers must ensure that all information and functionality
> comprising the Web content conforms to WCAG;

developers may assume that user agents

> support only this minimum set of technologies. Developers may also
> choose to use technologies that are not in the minimum set provided
> that the following are true:
>     The Web content is still accessible 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" access to the Web content by user agents that don't support
> them).

Well, that rules out Lynx for anything that relies ineluctably on 

> [2] Definition of technology
> <proposal>
> "Technology" means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol or 
> API.

I think this would be clearer as:

"Technology" means a data format; a programming or markup language; a 
protocol; or an applications programming interface (API).

> 4. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Triple-A means that all level 1, level 2
> and level 3 success criteria for all guidelines are met assuming user agent
> support for only the baseline technologies.

There won't be a Level 3.

> [4] Reading order
> <proposal>
> Promote the following success criteria of GL 2.4 to level 1:
>     * When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning,
> that sequence can be determined programmatically.

The Working Group needs to heed my advice on floated layouts and other 
layouts created by CSS. This isn't a trivial matter.

Valid, semantic HTML takes care of that problem for the most part, but not 

>     * When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially,
> elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences
> in the content

That seems to be nothing but a user-agent issue. We can't expect authors 
to put tabindexes on everything they ever write forevermore; among many 
other issues, tabindex applies only to a few elements.

> [5] authoring applications (part of conformance?)
> <proposal>
> Web applications that are created for the sole purpose of assisting
> users to create content intended for publication on the web must
> conform to at least Level A of the ATAG 2.0 Guidelines.

Sole purpose or primary purpose?

This is pretty good, though. Do we want to say "Web applications or 

> [6] New GL 1.3 Level 1 SC
> <proposal>
> The role, state and value of every element of the web content can be
> programmatically determined. Elements whose states and values can be
> changed via the user interface can also be changed programmatically.

Well, I don't get this. You mean everything I style with :hover has to be 
undoable by something else? And what is that something else? Is it not the 
same thing that is rendering the :hover behaviour-- the browser?

Why is this not an issue of user stylesheets, dead-end though those are?


     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 17:18:52 UTC

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