- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:31:38 -0400
- To: Kitch Barnicle <kab42@columbia.edu>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Kitch Barnicle wrote: > > Ian, > > All of my comments appear at the top of this message. > > I hadn't really noticed the issue that you pointed out regarding the fact that > guideline 11 mentions W3C technologies specifically but covers more than W3C > technologies. I like your suggestion of changing the guideline to read > something like "Support Open Specifications and Known Accessibility > Features." Ok. > But I still think the wording of checkpoint 11.2, Support > appropriate W3C recommendations is confusing. Maybe I am just not in synch > with > W3C terminology. Are there inappropriate W3C recommendations > or are we saying > support those recommendations that apply to your user agent? Yes: markup language you recognize, content type your recognize, etc. > Maybe it should > just say Support W3C recommendations with no qualifier. Are "W3C > recommendations" different from "W3C technologies"? Not so far, not. However, in the GL group we chose not to say "Recommendation" since people wouldn't know what it meant. We chose "Specification" instead. - Ian > kitch > > At 10:47 AM 8/26/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote: > >Kitch Barnicle wrote: > >> > >> What is the difference between checkpoint 11.1 and 11.2, which are both > under > >> the guideline "User agents should support applicable W3C technologies > and in > >> particular the accessibility features defined for the technology." > >> > >> 11.1 Implement the accessibility features defined for supported > technologies. > >> [Priority 1] > >> > >> 11.2 Support appropriate W3C Recommendations. [Priority 2] For instance, > for > >> document markup, support HTML and XML; for style sheets, support CSS; for > >> mathematics, support MathML; for multimedia, support SMIL, etc. > > > >Hi Kitch, > > > >The differences are the following: > > > >1) 11.1 refers to any technologies, not just W3C technologies. This > > would make the either the Guideline too specific (since it > > mentions W3C) or the checkpoint too general (and it should be > > limited to W3C specs). > > > >2) 11.1 refers to support for accessibility features, 11.2 refers to > > support for standards. If you can't do all of a standard (Priority 2) > > then be sure to do the accessibility parts (Priority 1). > > > >There's an emphasis on W3C specs for reasons enumerated > >in the rationale paragraph: > > > > > * W3C technologies include "built-in" accessibility features. > > > * W3C specifications undergo early review to ensure that > > accessibility issues are considered during the design phase. > > > * W3C specifications are developed in an open, industry > > consensus process. > > > >To address the discrepancy between the guideline text and > >the text of checkpoint 11.1, we could either: > > > >a) Expand the scope of the guideline to something like > > "Support Open Specifications and Known Accessibility Features" > > > > We might add a checkpoint to the effect of "Support open standards", > > but I'm not convinced of the necessity. > > > >b) Reduce the scope of checkpoint 11.1 to be: "Implement > > accessibility features defined for supported W3C technologies." > > > >I propose (a) without an additional checkpoint. > > > >On a related note: > > > >Yesterday in the AU WG meeting [1] we debated the use of the > >word "defined" in a similar checkpoint from the AU Guidelines. > >Several people felt that "defined" was too strong a word. > > > >The 18 August version of the AU Guidelines [2] reads: > > > > > 3.1 Implement all accessible authoring practices > > > that have been defined for the markup > > > language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1] > > > > > >The 25 August version of the AU Guidelines [3] reads: > > > > > > > 3.1 Ensure the author can implement accessible > > > authoring practices for the markup > > > language(s) supported by the tool. > > > >I propose that in any wording change to checkpoint 11.1 > >of the UA Guidelines, that we adopt similar wording, along > >the lines of: > > > > "Implement known accessibility features of W3C technologies." > > > >or in the more general case: > > > > "Implement known accessibility features of supported > > technologies." > > > >(Perhaps adding a note that this means markup languages, style > > sheet languages, schema languages, metadata formats, etc.) > > > >Thanks Kitch, > > > > - Ian > > > >Reference document: > > > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/W > AI-USERAGENT-19990809/ > > > >[1] > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0142.html>http:// > lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999JulSep/0142.html > >[2] > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990818/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI > -AUTOOLS-19990818/ > >[3] > <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990825>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI- > AUTOOLS-19990825 > >-- > >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) > <http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > >Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814 > > -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel/Fax: +1 212 684-1814
Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 20:31:52 UTC