- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:24:40 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I am going to restate my case after all.
Defining User Agent types is a complex task. Getting them wrong would have
significant consequences for the utility of any conformance statement, and
possibly for the guidelines themselves.
Understanding whether a checkpoint/Guideline is relevant to a particular
User Agent, based on a conformance statement which includes something like
Guidelines and checkpoints must be imlemented natively (unless otherwise
indicated) by user agents which (natively) render the features in
question. Foe example, a monochrome user agent which allows various
fonts to be used must implement checkpoints/guidelines which apply to
font-family, or size, whereas a speech output device need not. (Of
course a speech output device may render different fonts using different
voices via some mapping or an audio style sheet)
requires a small amount of common sense.
Arguing, against a 'common sense understanding' (which is a legally
sensible formulation in many parts of the world), that one is not required
to implement a particular guideline, in either case, merely requires a
good grasp of sophistic logic and rhetoric, and a motive to do so.
Therefore it seems to me that our energy could be better spent working on
the guidelines and checkpoints themselves.
--Charles McCathieNevile - mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: * +1 (617) 258 0992 * http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
**** new phone number ***
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative - http://www.w3.org/WAI
545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, USA
On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Jon Gunderson wrote:
Do you think these are the user agent types that we should be using?
Example of one user agent types with the my understanding of a checklist.
Is this what you had in mind?
TYPE: Visual Standard (VS)
DESCRIPTION: Rendering of document text content and graphical images on bit
mapped visual displays with 640x480 pixels or greater resolution with
default font sizes less than 48 point(the font size is only an initial
guess).
CHECKLIST:
__ Graphical display of at least 640x480 pixels
__ Allows for the rendering of text in multiple font sizes
__ Allows for the rendering of document information in more than 2 colors
__ Allows the rendering of images
__ Provides support for both a full size keyboard and a pointer (mouse) to
control nd adjust the user agent
EXAMPLES: Mass market user agents like Microsoft Internet Explorer,
Opera and Netscape navigator.
At 12:41 AM 12/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
>>
>> I am reposting my orginal proposal with a more explicit statement of
>> description and examples of current technology.
>>
>> A particular user agent can embody more than one user agent type and some
>> user agents may embody only part of one type (i.e playing audio files, but
>> not video for the MM type).
>
>Yes, but please recall in my original proposal that a type should
>only be defined as a set of checkpoints (techniques). The descriptions
>should only be informative.
>
> - Ian
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820
Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Wednesday, 23 December 1998 13:24:43 UTC