some additional thoughts on baseline

Hi guys,

some additional thoughts on baseline:

1.) What can authors assume about all user agents accessing their 
content if user agents were UAAG 1.0 conformant?
 
(partial list)

  - user agents will render content according to specification 
(standards would be supported correctly)
  - scripting may or may not be turned on, but turning them off has 
consequences
  - CSS may or may not be enabled
  - effective interactions with multimedia content may or may not be 
available
  - animated or blinking content can be turned off
  - users can configure font size/family, regardless of how it is encoded
  - conditional content and other alternatives are available

In taking a closer look at this, it seems to me that quite a few of the 
issues we were wrestling with when using UAAG as a baseline was first
proposed remain and that WCAG still needs to answer the question of when 
an author can use a given technology ((X)HTML, CSS, script, XML, SVG,
MathML, RDF, Flash, PDF, etc...) to conform to WCAG 2.0 without also 
having to provide an equivalent alternative for that content.

I've attached some notes related to UAAG as baseline. They include a 
summary of some of the larger issues around UAAG that I've run into, a
table with rough notes comparing WCAG with UAAG to see where they 
intersect, and a list of candidate repair techniques from our techniques
drafts.

--
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>