- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 14:00:16 +1000
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
John M Slatin writes: > > <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> I agree with the use of "any" in the above, but not with the inclusion of any reference to accessibility in the definition of baseline. Every piece of Web content, whether accessible or not (whatever one means by "accessible") has a baseline. Having recognized this, we can then evaluate in particular cases whether we think it's a good baseline or a bad/inappropriate/unreasonable baseline; but let's not build the "goodness" aspect into what we mean by "baseline". It's a lot clearer if we can speak about good and bad baselines, instead of having to say that someone who has made inappropriate technology assumptions in designing a piece of Web content hasn't chosen a baseline at all. What we should instead be able to say is that they've chosen an unreasonable baseline - that we think their choice of baseline was unsuitable to their content and audience, etc. I apologize for making the same point repeatedly in this discussion; I am simply trying to demonstrate the confusions we get into if we include some sort of normative requirement in the definition of "baseline".
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2005 04:01:35 UTC