RE: RE: working definition of baseline

Loretta writes:

<blockquote>
It ... feels like we are trying to restore some of the information 
that we moved into the conformance discussion when we tightened the 
baseline definition. See the proposal for conformance in [1].

If we aren't comfortable with the minimal description, that is, just 
the first sentence, perhaps we should look at restoring some of the 
original language.
</blockquote>

Good point.  The actual *definition* is contained in the first sentence:

<blockquote>
> A minimum set of technologies assumed in the design of Web content
to be
> supported by, and enabled in, all user agents capable of providing a 
> user interface for the content. 
</blockquote>

Gregg had suggested changing the first word from "A" to "Any" as a way
to leave room for multiple baselines.  Alan suggests making explicit
reference to accessibility, so perhaps the following would work:

<new NewProposal>
Any  minimum set of technologies assumed in the design of accessible Web
content
to be supported by, and enabled in, all user agents capable of providing
a 
user interface for the content. 
</newNewProposal>



The next sentence (below) points out the implications of the baseline
but isn't actually part of the definition:

<blockquote>
Only user agents in which every 
> technology in the defined baseline is supported and enabled can 
> present the information in and allow a user to operate the 
> functionality of the content. </blockquote>

John

"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: lguarino@adobe.com [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 12:37 pm
To: John M Slatin
Cc: jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au; Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: RE: working definition of baseline


> <newProposal>
> A minimum set of technologies assumed in the design of Web content
to be
> supported by, and enabled in, all user agents capable of providing a 
> user interface for the content. Only user agents in which every 
> technology in the defined baseline is supported and enabled can 
> present the information in and allow a user to operate the 
> functionality of the content. </newProposal>

When I read this, the second sentence feels like we are requiring 
authors to use all the technologies in the baseline, that is,  that 
somehow we are disallowing the case that a particular website only 
uses one of the technologies in the baseline and there is a user agent 
that only supports that technology. For defining baseline, if we are 
going to include this sort of information, it probably needs to be 
turned inside out: if you use a technology that is not in the 
baseline, user agents will not allow users to perceive the information 
in and operate the functionality, etc.

It also feels like we are trying to restore some of the information 
that we moved into the conformance discussion when we tightened the 
baseline definition. See the proposal for conformance in [1].

If we aren't comfortable with the minimal description, that is, just 
the first sentence, perhaps we should look at restoring some of the 
original language.

Loretta

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0364.html

Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 17:55:20 UTC