RE: RE: Guideline 4.2 and UAAG

Loretta,

I think these are very good summaries of the problem - and I am capturing
them to use as intro comments for the face to face.   

Anyone else with short concise statements that get to the heart of the
problem - please submit them.   It will make our work at the F2F go much
faster if we can spend the majority of the time on solving the problem
rather than defining it.  So any homework and posting on either definition
or solution is greatly appreciated.  

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of lguarino@adobe.com
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 6:20 PM
To: John M Slatin
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE: Guideline 4.2 and UAAG


I think there are two related issues here:

1) What can we assume about the user agent as we write our 
guidelines, that is, what part of the accessibility is the 
responsibility of the user agent developer, rather than the author.

2) What do we require about user agents when deciding whether a 
technology is acceptable for use at all.


Currently, guideline 4.2 says that there must be a UAAG1 
compliant user agent for a technology  in order to use it. I assume 
this applies to HTML, as well as other technologies. If there is no 
UAAG1 complaint browser for HTML, does this mean that authors 
can't use HTML?

Some comments have also related to a different issue, which is how 
available the user agent(s) is.  The guidelines are silent on that 
issue, but people are worried that there may not be a suitable user 
agent for their platform. This concerns surfaces a lot in the 
Javascript comments.

Received on Sunday, 13 March 2005 00:31:38 UTC