- From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 13:19:41 -0700
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Thanks, John. A few comments on some of your comments, preceded by "LGR": 1. WCAG needs authors to use technologies for which accessible user agents are available to the users. We refer to such a set of technologies as a baseline (and we need a better word than baseline for such a set of technologies). JS: I agree, but would like to unpack "accessible user agents" a bit. We want authors to use technologies for which there are user agents that (a) render content produced by those technologies in an accessible way and (b) are accessible to users with disabilities. LGR: Yes, although we probably need to specify that they render "properly authored" content in an accessible way. 3. A baseline can be defined for a given population of users at a given point in time, that is, it is possible to analyze the accessibility properties of user agents and to assess what user agents should be available to a set of users and come up with the list of technologies supported by accessible user agents. JS: That phrase "should be available" jumped out at me.Authors can't assume that something "should" be available. They have to be able to assume that the Something either is or is not available. The assumptions may be constrained by government or corporate policy or in some other way, or the author may be in a position to know for certain that a given technology *is* available (e.g., when developing an intranet for a specific client who has spelled out system requirements, etc.). If there isn't a clear policy and there isn't certain knowledge, then the author has to assume that only the most basic technologies are supported by and active in the user agent. LGR: Yes, as I was trying to write this, it is clear that this analysis becomes tricky. So the assertion that it is possible to do the analysis is an important one. If we really require that all user agents support the technology, I think we are back in the lowest- common-denominator, html-only world. If there is a user agent that is available to the user that supports the technology in an accessible way, I think we should permit the author to use that technology, even if that isn't, for instance, a user's preferred user agent. On the other hand, we can't require that the user switch platforms because there is only an accessible user agent for the technology on some other platforms. The analysis probably includes assumptions about the platforms used by (or available to) the audience.
Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 20:19:48 UTC