- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- cc: Eric Hansen <ehansen7@hotmail.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Errrm, we are requiring the DOM as the API that User Agents support for HTML/XML. Over the last couple of months (if I recall correctly, and I may be wrong) we in fact decided against requiring other forms of access, becuase the DOM was sufficient). Effectively that means that either assistive technologies implement the relevant bits of the DOM, or they simply ignore the guidelines and do their own thing in conjunction with manufacturers of user agents, doesn't it? Charles McCN On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote: Eric and I just finished a conversation about his proposals and I would like to summarize what I believe to be our agreement about the proposals. I am snipping all of the suggestions where we agreed to no change in the document. [snip] We agreed that not only should the document focus on general purpose user agents, that it is very unlikely that assistive technology developers will be interested in making conformance claims. Here is the question: if you are a component that is part of a conformance claim, do you have to satisfy all of the requirements of the document? In the simplest model, the answer is yes: you have to allow the user keyboard access to functionalities, content that is handled by the component has to be available through the DOM, the user interface needs to be controllable through an API, the user must be able to control styles, the documentation must conform to WCAG, etc. [There may be some checkpoints that wouldn't apply to individual components but only to the entirety of the subject of the claim. Which checkpoints are these?] [and in particular:] This means that an assistive technology that would be part of a claim would have to implement the DOM, etc. and this is not what we intend with this document. We don't prevent that, but the document is clearly not meant to make these requirements on assistive technologies. Proposed: Just make this clear in the abstract, the introduction, and in section 3 on conformance. Say clearly that these guidelines are not meant for evaluations of assistive technologies.
Received on Monday, 21 August 2000 20:15:10 UTC