- From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
- Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:47:05 -0500
- To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
- Cc: <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <NCBBJFEKMOPIHFHNBHMMIEHGCCAA.danson@miseri.edu>
Ian, This language says that compliance can only come through native implementation, which would leave out third party AT as a means of compliance. I don't think that this is necessarily a good idea. One of the themes that has gone through the document in techniques is to fully implement and expose the DOM as a means of conformance. But that implies that a third party device would use the information provided by the DOM to provide access to the web. The requirement of native implementation would make exposure of the DOM a non-issue, since the browser must provide direct access to all priority 1 items. By allowing third party AT, we also give the option of such technology also implementing priority 2 or 3 items, even though the mainstream browser does not. Denis Anson, MS, OTR Assistant Professor Computer Access Specialist College Misericordia 301 Lake Street Dallas, PA 18612 RESNA The International Organization of Assistive Technology Professionals Member since 1989 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ian Jacobs Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 6:36 PM To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org Cc: jbrewer@w3.org Subject: Proposal: Conformance Statement Hello, Based on consensus reached during the 20 January teleconference [1], I propose the following statement of conformance to the User Agent Guidelines. Note that all the hard work lays ahead: establishing two subsets of checkpoints. - Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0071.html -- Conformance The terms "must", "should", and "may" (and related terms) are used in this document in accordance with RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]). This document defines two categories of conformance in order to promote a standard of accessibility within, and interoperability between, two important classes of user agents - graphical desktop browsers and dependent assistive technologies. Desktop graphical user agents To conform to this document, a desktop graphical user agent must: 1.Satisfy all the Priority 1 checkpoints explicitly marked as applying to that class of user agent, and 2.Satisfy those checkpoints natively (i.e., no additional software is required) unless the checkpoint explicitly indicates that it may be satisfied through communication with other software. Even for those checkpoints that must be satisfied natively, desktop graphical user agents should make information available to other software through standard interfaces. Dependent user agents To conform to this document, a dependent user agent must: 1.Satisfy all the Priority 1 checkpoints explicitly marked as applying to that class of user agent. 2.Satisfy those checkpoints natively (i.e., no additional software is required) unless the checkpoint explicitly indicates that it may be satisfied through communication with other software. Verification that a checkpoint has been satisfied lies outside of the scope of this document and the activities of the WAI User Agent Working Group. The checkpoints are expressed in language intended to facilitate verification by other parties. Please note that lack of conformance does not imply lack of accessibility. However, the WAI User Agent Working Group believes that a user agent that conforms to this document is more likely to be accessible than one that does not. The conformance mechanisms defined here reflect the weight that the WAI User Agent Working Group assigns to the Priority 1 checkpoints. However, the Working Group also recommends that user agent developers satisfy as many checkpoints as possible, including Priority 2 and 3 checkpoints.
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 1999 08:46:38 UTC