RE: Accessibility and Conformance, etc.

Ian's summary seems accurate.

I would like to emphasize that many of the issues, including some of those
not cited by Ian in his summary were partially, if not fully addressed by
making clear that the scope of the "the subject of each checkpoint is the
subject of the claim" (whether that subject be a composite or singular user
agent). This goes a long way in resolving what I perceive as ambiguity of
the meaning of terms like "user interface" in very key checkpoints such as
checkpoints 1.1 ("1.1 Ensure that every functionality available through the
user interface is also available through every input API implemented by the
user agent.") and 2.1 ("2.1 Make all content available through the user
interface. [Priority 1]"). For example, it was not clear to me, and might
not be to other readers, whether the user interface of the braille or speech
output devices were to be included as part of the user interface being
referred to. This clarification will help people understand that the user
interface being referred to is that of the subject of the claim rather than
that of the assistive technology (unless of course some assistive technology
is part of the claim and adheres to UAAG checkpoints).

This clarification makes a much clearer boundary between (a) the user agent
that is the subject of the claim and (b) assistive technologies. 

[snip by EH]
> > 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".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 7:41 PM
> To: Eric Hansen
> Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Accessibility and Conformance, etc.
> 
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 22 August 2000 10:53:56 UTC