Re: Analysis of Applicability in UAAG 1.0

Thanks Ian for your analysis of applicability, this should make it easier
to understand the implications of partciular resolutions to this issue.

Jon
 

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> In light of recent discussion about applicability, a request
> from Charles [2] to review the use of the term in the document,
> and a proposal from Eric [3] to simplify the model, I have
> attempted to analyze how we use the concept of 
> applicability in the document. The analysis [1] has three 
> parts:
> 
>   1) Links to background discussions and issues.
>   2) Summary of the six applicability provisions in
>      the 18 August draft [4].
>   3) Breakdown of how the checkpoints seem to be
>      covered by those provisions. 
> 
>      a) Some of the checkpoints seem unaffected and
>         thus would always apply.
> 
>      b) Two of the provisions seem unnecessary and
>         can be removed: unsupported technologies,
>         unsupported communication.
> 
>      c) The other four provisions can be stated
>         more succinctly and, according to this
>         analysis, should be left in the document.:
>         content type, content role, content properties,
>         and rendering support.
> 
> My hope in doing this analysis was that I would
> conclude that applicability was not necessary and
> could be removed from the document. This was Eric's
> conclusion [3], though his conclusion is based on
> the premise that "a checkpoint is applicable to a 
> user agent if the checkpoint requires capabilities that
> the developer of the user agent intends for users 
> without any disability." I haven't been able to
> agree with that starting point since there are some
> requirements that are principally about features for
> users with disabilities (e.g., captions) and others
> that are required whether or not the developer intended
> them for users without disabilities (e.g., DOM support).
> 
> Thus, while I believe that we can get rid of two
> of the applicability provisions, so far I have not
> been convinced that we can get rid of the remaining 
> four. I'm still hoping we can!
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/08/uaag10-applic
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0031.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0225.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20000818
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2000 11:42:39 UTC