- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:04:47 -0600
- To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <lisa@ubaccess.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "GVAN" <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
- Message-ID: <007301c5ee48$563e8100$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
Answers below marked GV: Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison _____ From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Seeman Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 1:38 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: baseline_overview_draft.htm "Baseline specifications are not browser specifications" But can they be platform / operating system / client specific? GV: The baseline cannot be platform/operating system client specific. Authors could however put technologies in their baseline that only exist on one platform, or that are only accessible on one platform. That is why it is important that standard baselines be created that do not depend or include technologies that are not widely supported. Whether they need to be supported on all platforms is another question. All types of AT don't even exist on all platforms. Also, by allowing closed platforms in the baseline you are often making it operating system specific, as closed platforms may only have accessibility in windows. GV: I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to the INTRANET example and comments? Further, if a baseline does not require cross platform support then there will be no incentive for them to implement cross platform accessibility. Because they are closed assistive technologies, open source ect will never be able to port them across operating systems GV: This may be true. But requiring cross platform content may be beyond our charge. I personally would love to require cross platform content. But I don't know that we can go there. Will have to look at this one and ask W3C what we can do. The we need to talk to the working group to see what they want to do (within what we can do). One last point. It is not the same as saying that this plug in only works in windows - because the plugin may work in different operating systems - just the accessibility does not. GV: Yes. This is a concern. I mentioned it in my first answer above. Accessibility IS in our bailiwick. This seems a bit mixed with the cross platform question so we'll have to tease out where we can go on this. All the best Lisa ----- Original Message ----- From: Christophe Strobbe <mailto:christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: baseline_overview_draft.htm At 02:53 17/11/2005, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: <blockquote> We have been working on a description of the baseline concept. Attached is what the editors have been able to develop on this. We can review it tomorrow. It would be good to release it with the next draft. </blockquote> I made a few editorial changes (see attachment: baseline_overview_draf_editsCS.html). Below is the list of changes: WCAG 2.0 working group -> WCAG working group the 2.0 guidelines -> the WCAG 2.0 guidelines / version 2.0 of the guidelines todays -> today's non W3C technologies -> non-W3C technologies to create an accessible Web content yet -> to create accessible Web content, yet [delete 'an'; add comma before 'yet'] without introducing incompatible guidelines between countries -> without introducing guidelines that are incompatible between countries By using this two layered approach, it is possible -> This two-layered approach makes it possible The group however found -> The group, however, found set of technologies see below) -> set of technologies, see below), introduce a new concept "baseline".-> introduce a new concept: "baseline". [deleted colons at end of hx elements] and other a few other commonly supported technologies -> and a few other commonly supported technologies the users agent -> the user agent [several instances] If the users user agent -> If the user agent for each success criteria -> for each success criterion Within some of these docs ->Within some of these documents each success criteria of the guidelines -> each success criterion of the guidelines technique docs - > technique documents In fact the working group -> In fact, the working group In the section "Additional Information Related Baseline and Conformance": Required components ... [added full stop at the end of each item] Additional Information Related Baseline and Conformance -> Additional Information Related to Baseline and Conformance Optional components of a conformance claim: 1. technologies 'relied upon" -> technologies "relied upon" [code for nested lists was messed up] - (This includes markup languages, style sheet languages, scripting/programming languages, image formats, and multimedia formats.) -> [remove the parentheses?] - relied upon means that the content would not meet WCAG 2.0 at the claimed level if that technology is turned off or not supported) -> Relied ... [capitalise first letter of the sentence; replace closing parenthesis with full stop] - the set of -> The set of 2. A list of the specific technologies that are "used" but not "relied upon" -> [add full stop] [In "Examples of conformance claims", asterisks were replaced with <em> + styling to display as bold instead of italic.] Note that in example 4 the author is ...; the company -> Note that in example 4, the author is ...: the company cross disability accessible -> cross-disability accessible e.g. what version of HTML? of XHTML? of CSS? of PDF? of Flash? etc -> For example, what version of HTML, XHTML, CSS, PDF, etcetera? Win98, Win 95 -> Windows 98, Windows 95 When dealing with the Internet therefore it is important -> When dealing with the Internet, it is therefore important Some question to consider -> Below are some question to consider. user agent (does one exist) -> user agent (if one exists) supported by only by user agents -> supported only by user agents Is the accessible version of the plug-in not the one that usually is downloaded or pointed to? -> Is the accessible version of the plug-in different from the one that is usually downloaded or pointed to? Removed unused CSS styles. Changed character encoding from cp-1252 to UTF-8 and cleaned up unrecognized character entities. Changed DOCTYPE to XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Regards, Christophe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 03:05:00 UTC