- From: Neil Whiteley <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:33:19 -0000
- To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jason wrote: > > Again, it would have to be decided what the minimum > necessary level of implementation was, bringing us back to the > difficult question of user agent support. The technology baseline is impossible to define in a normative way. There are just too many variables. All that you can do is decide upon (in a "pin the tail on a donkey" kind of way) and state the baseline used in compiling the guidelines. Ultimately, the overall responsibility for baseline assumptions will have to be shared with authors and publishers. It's the authors and publishers that will know their target audience and decide which technologies they are going to use. In a corporate intranet environment, the audience is known. The available technology is known. The baseline can be set without making too many assumptions but policy and financial constraints may mean that the baseline is below WCAG published baseline. Margin for error is low. In the environment of the Web, assumptions have to be made which will vary dependent upon target audience. Here, authors will need to adjust their baseline assumptions above or below WCAG published baseline. In practice, assumptions will mostly be made based on access logs, dubious published data and the grapevine. Authors will adjust their baselines to satisfy client requirements (specific technologies i.e. Flash) and financial constraints. Margin for error is high. Without "until user agents ..." or now more accurately "until your target audience technology baseline can be assumed to meet or exceed the WCAG 2.0 published baseline ..." and appropriate repair techniques, the question is really: How do authors identify the level at which they have set their baseline? Moreover, how do they claim compliance if their baseline is below WCAG published baseline? Is it possible to test varying baselines? I'm sure this doesn't help at all. Regards, Neil Whiteley Tag2 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: 26 March 2005 07:56 To: John M Slatin Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; Al Gilman; Subject: RE: Key results and recommendations from Face to Face John M Slatin writes: > > Perhaps "conventional" or "typical" would be better terms to use for > that first sense of the word "standard." For example, it has become > "conventional" to use the link text "More ..." for a link to the > continuation of a news item. By contrast, the HTML standard (in this > case a specification) requires that the link text is enclosed within an > anchor element. John's choice of terminology is excellent. It also avoids the objection that W3C Recommendations are, stricto sensu, not standards. Perhaps we define "conventional and supported manner" to mean: 1. A manner prescribed in a technical specification defining the technologies used to implement the content. 2. A manner which has become customary within the community of Web content developers at large, or among specialists in the design of accessible content. "Supported" would have to be defined in terms of implementation by user agents or other applicable tools (e.g., content validation and testing software). Again, it would have to be decided what the minimum necessary level of implementation was, bringing us back to the difficult question of user agent support.
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2005 12:33:53 UTC