Re: Proposed change to priority wording

Denis Anson wrote:
> 
> 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. 

That is exactly correct. However not all checkpoints apply to
every user agent. But when they do apply, you must do them natively.

> I can almost guarantee that if we set the bar that high,
> most folks won't even make the effort!

Please show me which checkpoints you think set the bar too high.

 _ Ian


> -----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

-- 
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 16:57:52 UTC