Re: "Checkpoint applicability", "Native support", etc.

"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> This memo is my response to Jon Gunderson's comments [1] on my comments on
> my comments [2]. Jon Gunderson's comments [1] are snipped and then also
> included in the Appendix in a slightly reformatted form.
> 
> 1. How Does It Help?
> 
> Jon wrote:
> 
> "I am not sure about the topic of "features for people disabilities versus
> features for people without disabilities" in this section.   What does this
> add to the discussion of applicability?"
> 
> I am still thinking through the implications of emphasizing the distinction
> between primary capabilities and secondary capabilities. I now see that
> following my suggestion of a few days ago in [2] without making other
> adjustments in the document may allow too much of a loop-hole. The essential
> piece of my Applicability section in [2] was:
> 
> "A checkpoint is applicable if it requires capabilities that are intended
> for users without any disability who using the user agent under 'standard
> conditions'."
> 
> I plan to return to this issue in another memo.

As I mentioned earlier, I think this is incomplete since UAAG
makes some requirements that are applicable and that
are meant for users with disabilities (e.g., implementation
of the DOM).

 - Ian
-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2000 13:15:54 UTC