- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:05:23 -0700
- To: schwer@us.ibm.com
- Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Rich, It is possible to discuss another category at the meeting wednesday and I am sure it will be discussed. But I would really like to have only two right. I was wondering how many other checkpoints besides the ones in Guideline 6 "Observe system conventions and standard interfaces" would be of concern for HPR if you were trying to comply with the dependent user agent sub-grouping. Thanks, Jon At 03:47 PM 8/30/99 -0500, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > >Jon, > >After considerable thought on this on really believe section 3.1(conformance) >needs to define a third class of agent called a "Targetted Agent." Targetted >agents like Home Page Reader and PWWebSpeak are user agents that are targetted >to a specific disabilities group or groups. They are not designed to work with >or provide access to features that an unrelated asssitive technology should >need. In particular, the definition of "Native support" required: > >"for dependend user agents states that Native support does not preclude more >extensive support for accessibility by dependent user agents, so user agents >must still make information available through programming interfaces." > >This means that if a targetted agent renders a document visually it needs to >support a DOM and expose all the API to another assistive technology for the >purposes of enabling access by different user agent technologies or disabilites >groups not intended by the targetted agent. When doing our Home Page Reader >Evaluation and when assessing future Home Page Reader product requirements we >found numerous conformance checkpoints that were non-applicable for the reasons >stated. > >To change the wording in section 3.1 I would suggest the following: > >The terms "must", "should", and "may" (and related terms) are used in this >document in accordance with RFC 2119 ([RFC2119]). > >To promote interoperability between graphical desktop user agents and dependent >user agents and between graphical desktop user agents and targetted agents >conformance to this document is expressed in terms of these three types of >software. > >Conformance for graphical desktop browsers > >In order to conform as a graphical desktop browser, the user agent must satisfy >all the checkpoints (for a chosen conformance level) that apply to graphical >desktop browsers and do so natively. > >Even for those checkpoints that must be satisfied natively, graphical desktop >browsers should make information available to other software through standard >interfaces (e.g., specialized dependent user agents may provide a better >solution to a problem than a graphical desktop browser). > >Conformance for dependent user agents >In order to conform as a dependent user agent, the user agent must satisfy all >the checkpoints (for a chosen conformance level) that apply to dependent user >agents and do so natively. > >Conformance for targetted agents > >In order to conform as a targetted agent, the user must satisfy all the >checkpoints (for a chosen conformance level) that apply to targetted agents. >Targetted agents are graphical desktop browsers targetted to a specific >disability. > >The difficulty here will be deciding what checkpoints apply to what >disabilties. >Does such a list exist? > >Rich > >Rich Schwerdtfeger >Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems >EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm > >"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - >I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.", Frost >
Received on Monday, 30 August 1999 18:00:39 UTC