RE: Proposed change to priority wording

Ian,

The way I have been thinking of this is that, to be conformant, a browser
must meet all Priority 1 checkpoints.  But the standard for priority 1 is
that "This checkpoint must be implemented by user agents as a native feature
or through compatibility with assistive technology, otherwise one or more
groups of users with disabilities will find it impossible to access
information. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some
individuals to be able to use the Web. "
To me, that says that it is possible to meet the checkpoint using AT.  Your
proposed wording would require a conformant browser to be all things to all
people, natively.  I can almost guarantee that if we set the bar that high,
most folks won't even make the effort!


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
RESNA ANNUAL CONFERENCE -- "RESNA 2000"
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 Ian Jacobs
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:47 PM
To: Denis Anson
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change to priority wording

Denis Anson wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> I don't think we want to remove the option of making functionality
available
> through add-on assistive technology in a browser.  Some special features,
> like speech output, Braille output, or speech recognition are better
> provided through external programming, since the need for them is
relatively
> small compared with the overall marketplace.  Besides, input adaptations
and
> output adaptations should be consistent across applications, so are better
> provided with external tools rather that having to change strategies with
> each program.

For conformance, there's no dependence on other software. There are
only three possibilities for a checkpoint: you satisfy, you don't, or
it's not applicable. There's no option for "done by other software".

It may be that ATs do some tasks better, and general UAs have to
make information available to them. But a tool's conformance must
be independent of other tools.

 - Ian


> Ian wrote:
> I'm reading the User Agent Guidelines (a rare treat!). The
> priority statements are not correct with respect to
> the recent change in conformance. The current wording
> (e.g., for Priority 1):
>
> <BLOCKQUOTE>
> This checkpoint must be implemented by user agents
> as a native feature or through compatibility with
> assistive technology, otherwise one or more groups
> of users with disabilities will find it impossible
> to access information. Satisfying this checkpoint is
> a basic requirement for some individuals to be
> able to use the Web.
> </BLOCKQUOTE>
>
> I propose the following change:
>
> <BLOCKQUOTE>
> This checkpoint must be satisfied by user agents as a native feature,
> otherwise one or more groups of users with disabilities will
> find it impossible to access information. Satisfying
> this checkpoint is a basic requirement for
> some individuals to be able to use the Web.
> </BLOCKQUOTE>
>
>  - Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

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

Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 16:50:17 UTC