RE: conformance-revs2.htm

This is generally very good-- it clarifies a lot. I really like the term "accessibility-enabled Web technologies." However, I found the explanation a little confusing, so I've tried to clarify a bit.
 
<current>

Accessibility-enabled Web technologies are defined as technologies that include accessibility provisions needed to create content that can conform to WCAG

2.0 where both of the following are true: 

 

list of 2 items

1. The technologies are supported by assistive technology (AT) available to most all users 

 

At least one of the following is true:

 

list of 2 items nesting level 1

a. The technology implements accessibility APIs that are supported by a wide range of assistive technology including assistive technology that is available

to most all users. 

 

b. The technology has been tested for interoperability with commonly-used assistive technology in the natural language(s) of the content including assistive

technology that is available to most all users.

 

list end nesting level 1

2. The technologies are available to the intended audience (AT) 

 

At least one of the following is true:

 

list of 4 items nesting level 1

a. The technology is supported natively in widely-distributed user agents. Examples: HTML, frames, CSS, JavaScript 

 

b. The technology is available in a widely distributed plug-in. Examples: PDF, Flash, Quick Time, Media Player

 

c. The content is available in a closed environment, such as a university or corporate network, where the software required by the technology is installed

on all the machines. 

 

d. The technology is available for download or purchase in a way that does not disadvantage people with disabilities.

 

Note: Using a technology that isn’t widely distributed isn’t necessarily an accessibility issue as long as the process for getting the technology does

not disadvantage users with disabilities. For example, if you require users to download a plug-in in order to view content, as long as the download can

be completed with assistive technology, the plug-in is as easy to locate as any non-accessibility-enabled version, and the plug-in interoperates with assistive

technology, the technology would meet option d.

 

list end nesting level 1

</current>

 

<proposed>

 

Accessibility-enabled Web technologies are defined as technologies that include accessibility provisions needed to create content that can conform to WCAG

2.0, where both of the following are true: 

 

list of 2 items

1. The technologies are supported by assistive technology (AT) available to most users. This means that at least one of the following is true:

 

list of 2 items nesting level 1

a. The technology implements accessibility APIs that are supported by a wide range of assistive technology, including assistive technology that is available to most users. 

 

b. The technology has been tested for interoperability with commonly-used assistive technology in the natural language(s) of the content, including assistive technology that is available to most users.

 

list end nesting level 1

2. The technologies (AWT)  are available to the intended audience. This means that at least one of the following is true:

 

list of 4 items nesting level 1

a. The technology is supported natively in widely-distributed user agents. Examples: HTML, frames, CSS, JavaScript 

 

b. The technology is available in a widely distributed plug-in. Examples: PDF, Flash, Quick Time, Media Player

 

c. The content is available in a closed environment, such as a university or corporate network, where the software required by the technology is installed on all the machines. 

 

d. The technology is available for download or purchase in a way that does not disadvantage people with disabilities.

 

Note: Using a technology that isn’t widely distributed isn’t necessarily an accessibility issue as long as the process for getting the technology does not disadvantage users with disabilities. For example, if you require users to download a plug-in in order to view content, the plug-in would meet option d  as long as the download can be completed using assistive technology, the plug-in is as easy to locate as any non-accessibility-enabled version, and the plug-in interoperates with assistive technology.

 

list end nesting level 1

list end

</proposed>

 

Hope this helps.

 

John

 
 

"Good design is accessible design." 

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:04 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: conformance-revs2.htm



Here is a new conformance section we compiled based on the decisions and proposals made so far.    I will post the supporting doc, the issue summaries etc. later today sometime.    We will put out a survey that will allow comments on the whole and each section in prep for a discussion this Thursday.    Think we got all the parts here but I'm sure we missed something.

 

Note that, per our discussion, there is now a companion UNDERSTANDING CONFORMANCE doc.  Links from this doc will take you to the WIKI where that is being built. 

 


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>