Re: Accessibility and Conformance, etc.

Ian,
One comment in suggestion 1 is that there is a hope by many of the
participants of the working group that current assistive technologies will
try to conform.  This would allow assistive technologies to work in
combination with other assistive technologies to create "new" assistive
technologies.  We will have to wait and see if this really happens, but I
would not want the guidelines to insinuate that they are not for assistive
technologies.  Newer assistive technolgies are being built around DOM
technologies and will make it easier for ATs to conform, since this is
usually their biggest concern.

Jon


On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

> Eric Hansen wrote:
> > 
> > To: UA List
> > From: Eric Hansen
> > Subject: Accessibility and Conformance, etc.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 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.
> 
> (Eric, please correct my assertions where they are flawed.)
> 
> 
> > Suggestion 1. Focus more specifically on "general-purpose graphical desktop
> > browsers that provide multimedia presentation capabilities".
> 
> 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?]
> 
> 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.
> 
> > Suggestion 3. Acknowledge the necessity for composite user agents.
> 
> Done in the 18 August draft, section 3.2
> 
> > Suggestion 4. Define the terms 'prime user agent' and 'supplementary user
> > agent'.
> 
> Proposed: Rather than doing this, it should be made clear (e.g., at the
> beginning of section 2 or in each checkpoint, whichever is lighter) that
> 
> a) the subject of each checkpoint is the subject of the claim
> b) the subject of the claim may be a composite.
>    ACTION IJ: Fix section 3.5, which talks about N subjects rather than
>    N components of "the subject of the claim".
> 
> In short, there is no distinction necessary between primary and
> supplementary user agent.
> 
> > Suggestion 5. Allow few if any inapplicable checkpoints.
> 
> Proposed: Instead, put back text from earlier versions of the document:
> 
>    'As the number of applicable checkpoints decreases for a piece
>     of software, the likelihood increases that the guidelines are 
>     not an accurate gauge of the accessibility of that piece of
> software.'
> 
> And perhaps add some commentary about how readers should pay attention
> to the number of inapplicable checkpoints when comparing user agents.
>  
> > Suggestion 9. Require conformance claims to indicate the identity of the
> > claimant.
> 
> Proposed: 
>  - Recommend (but don't require) that the claimant include
>    information about the identity of the claimant (e.g,. vendor name,
>    organization name, URI, etc.)
>  
> > Suggestion 11. Require that if two or more components of a claim are the
> > same component, a rationale for this must be included.
> 
> Proposed: Rather, recommend that for each component of the subject of
> the
> claim, that the claimant indicate which checkpoints the component helps
> to satisfy.
> 
> > Suggestion 12. Reexamine situations in which the language of "applicability"
> > occurs within checkpoints.
> 
> To be addressed separately.
>  
> > Suggestion 15. Explain what we think are appropriate uses of the ratings.
> > 
> > For example, is it appropriate to use such ratings as sole criteria in
> > buying decisions? Even more modestly, are the ratings appropriately used in
> > representing the accessibility factor in buying decisions.
> 
> Propsoed: Add this to the FAQ.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Monday, 21 August 2000 23:03:34 UTC