W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 1999

RE: Proposed Note about developer-level information

From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:33:07 -0400
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, "WAI UA group" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-cg@w3.org>, "WAI AU Guidelines" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, <brian.kelly@ukoln.bath.ac.uk>
More specifically, if a browser claims to support a certain kind of access
natively, and some user can't get to that type of access, you have a
condition of non-compliance.  Manufacturers and independent testing
organizations will be measuring level of compliance.  Independent users will
be reporting non-compliance.  Both ultimately get to the same information,
but the route is different.

Denis Anson, MS, OTR
Assistant Professor
College Misericordia
301 Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612

Member since 1989:
RESNA: An International Association of Assistive Techology Professionals
Website: http://www.resna.org
ORLANDO, FL, JUNE 28 -- July 2, 2000

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 11:45 AM
To: Ian Jacobs
Cc: Jon Gunderson; WAI UA group; w3c-wai-cg@w3.org; WAI AU Guidelines;
Subject: Re: Proposed Note about developer-level information

Crossposted to AU, for whom this question also arises.

I agree with Ian that it makes sense to allow developers, consumers and
parties such as rating bureaux the ability to test conformance and make a
claim of conformance on their own behalf, or for a product they have tested.

It is of course nearly impossible for someone who does not know the code of
an implementation to be certain whether they follow some of the checkpoints,
and they have to rely on statements by the manufacturer. This is no
to a claim that browser X supports CSS - until I have run it through a
complete test suite how do I know whether the manufacturer is telling the
truth? On the other hand, anyone else can run it through the test suite,
since they are publicly available.

Just like with PICS rating services, individuals differ in how much they
trust a claim (There are some PICS services I think are very good, and
I find sufficiently inaccurate as to feel that the world would be better
without them. Like any other service really).

A possible approach would be to use an RDF schema of some kind (if the RDF
schema language becomes a recommendation it could be omre formally
but it is not necessary) to set up a rating bureau. It would make an
interesting research project perhaps.

Charles McCN

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Jon Gunderson wrote:
  > I have send Judy Brewer an e-mail about the conformance issue.  I think
  > that WAI as a group needs to decide how people will use verify
  The following responses are my opinions:
  > 1. Will it be left up to developers themselves?
  I think developers should be able to make conformance claims.
  > 2. Will consumers be able to evaulate independently?
  I think consumers should be able to make conformance claims.
  > 3. Should there be a group that validates claims of conformance?
  Setting up a third-party agency (or several) to verify conformance
  might be useful, notably if the agency gave feedback about the usability
  of the guidelines, errata, etc. I doubt W3C has the resources to
  serve as an agency itself, though it should be responsive to questions
  from rating agencies (as part of life-after-Rec).

  Labels and rating systems suggests using PICS
  for implementing solutions (refer to rating systems [1]).

   - Ian

  [1] http://www.w3.org/PICS/raters.htm

The original thread:
  > At 10:11 PM 10/3/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
  > >Hello,
  > >
  > >In my review of NN 4.6 [1] and from other reviews,
  > >it is apparent that some of the checkpoints cannot be
  > >verified by mere mortals; developer documentation or
  > >assistance is required. In particular, the following
  > >information is difficult to ascertain without detailed
  > >specs:
  > >
  > >  1) Does the UA support all functionalities through a given
  > >     input or output device API?
  > >  2) Does the UA support a spec (W3C or other) 100%? Vendor claims
  > >     are often exaggerated.
  > >  3) What information is made available through software APIs?
  > >     (user interface controls, document object model, etc.)
  > >  4) If it's possible to control the UA through an API, how is this
  > >     done?
  > >
  > >I propose that we include a Note in the document warning readers
  > >that some of the checkpoints will be difficult to verify without
  > >details from developers. For instance, in the section on Conformance,
  > >we might say:
  > >
  > >Note. While the checkpoints have been designed to be verifiable, some
  > >may be difficult to verify without documentation from vendors about
  > >what features and APIs they support.
  > >
  > > - Ian
  > >
  > >[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/uagl-checklist-nn4.60
  > >--
  > >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
  > >Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
  > >Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
  > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
  > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
  > Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
  > 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.w3.org/wai/ua
  >                 http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess

  Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
  Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
  Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 15:30:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:23 UTC