- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 12:00:35 -0500 (EST)
- To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
- cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I agree that there is a chicken and egg problem between authoring and supporting features in user agents. My take is that we set priorities based on the impact on people with disabilities, and those priorities are applied to requirements for authoring (Web Content and Authoring Tool Guidelines) and User Agents. The strength of this approach is that it provides encouragement to conform, and do the right thing, without waiting for the other side to make the first move. The cost of this approach is that our current priority system says that any feature which is beneficial, but is not a significant hindrance or total barrier to access is only a Priority 3 requirement. It seems to me that this group, as the Authoring Tools Group did, should not try to decide the priority of content features, since that is the responsibility of the Web Content Guidelines. Personally, I think that anything that does not meet P1 requirements (as they are for people, which I hope and expect we will capture in the P1 checkpoints of these guidelines) is only useful in the absence of another choice. Double-A conformance is my rough yardstick for "this tool is worth recommending". That is of course in a general case - in some cases I would suggest trying to match more closely the needs of a given user, and may suggest a tool that meets those needs best even if it is not, overall, conformant. I hope and seriously expect to see triple-A tools in a couple of years. (Hacking away at Amaya actually reinforces that faith). Charles McCN On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Denis Anson wrote: Charles, This brings up an interesting philosophical philosophical point. There is not incentive for a web author to insert accessibility features that are not supported by browsers. There is no incentive for browsers to support features that are never used in pages. If support for content has the same lower priority as the implementation of those features, why would a UA writer ever support them? Ultimately, we are hoping that priority 2 and priority 3 features are supported. This might be a serial raising of the bar for "conformance" over time. Would that be incentive enough? Just wondering.... Denis Anson
Received on Monday, 1 November 1999 12:00:36 UTC