W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Scoring Example User Agents, etc.

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 04:02:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
cc: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>, "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, ij@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009070331390.11339-100000@tux.w3.org>
Comments inline...

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jon Gunderson wrote:

  Comments in JRG:
  At 03:17 PM 9/5/2000 -0400, Hansen, Eric wrote:
  >To: UA List
  >From: Eric Hansen
  >Re: Scoring Example User Agents
  >Suggestion 1: Determine whether there needs to be any adjustment in
  >checkpoints due to the new focus on "mainstream graphical user agents".
  >The 1 September 2000 draft focuses in on "mainstream graphical user agents"
  >and I presume that this excludes user agents that a specifically or
  >exclusively for people with disabilities.
  JRG: The working group has discussed this issue and it is not the intention 
  of the working group to exclude any user agent.  I believe the statement is 
  to read as that the group wanted to be sure that graphical user agents are 
  thoroughly covered by the document.  I don't think we need this restriction 
  or has the group decided to do so.

CMN I agree with Jon here.
  >Suggestion 2: Gather data to strengthen our understanding of some key
  >questions related to assistive technologies, plug-ins, and add-ons, etc.
  >The 1 September 2000 draft moves in the right direction by clarifying the
  >relationship between the UAAG document and assistive technologies:
  >"3.2 Which user agents are expected to conform"
  >"Users with disabilities often require more than one user agent for full
  >access to the Web. For example, a user might require a graphical desktop
  >browser, a multimedia player, and specialized assistive technologies such as
  >screen readers, which are useful for controlling speech output and
  >refreshable braille display. This document focuses on the accessibility of
  >mainstream user agents so that most users with disabilities will have access
  >to the Web when using a conforming user agent in conjunction with assistive
  >technologies. There are also requirements in this document to make user
  >agents more accessible to those users with disabilities who do not require
  >assistive technologies for full access."
  >This paragraph is helpful and seems to reflect pretty well our current state
  >of knowledge. Yet there are ambiguities. The second and first sentences
  >imply that a combination of technologies -- "graphical desktop browser, a
  >multimedia player, and specialized assistive technologies" are necessary to
  >provide "full access". Yet the third sentence seems to indicate that the
  >"conforming user agent" was treated as a singular user agent rather than as
  >a composite (or combined) user agent. I think that we ourselves need to
  >understand better how our document behaves when used under different,
  >commonly occurring situations.
  JRG: The guidelines are intended to provide a line in the sand for 
  developers.  If you do this your technology will be compatible with AT 
  developers.  We have had meetings and participation with AT developers who 
  have agreed to the line in the sand.  The basic precept is that for the 
  input and output modalities that a user agent supports directly that they 
  must do so in an accessible way.  For other modalities, they must be 
  compatible with assistive technologies.
  >The need for further clarification was highlighted in my own case when I
  >realized how unsure I was about the answers to some of the following
  >a. No DOM Support in Component of a Composite User Agent
  >True or False: "It is possible for a user agent that does not implement the
  >DOM to be a component of a composite user agent that achieves any of the
  >three levels of claim (single-A, double-A, and triple-A)."
  JRG: False.  If you do not export the DOM, you cannot comply.
CMN: Actually I think it is true that a given component need not export the
DOM so long as the composite agent does.
  >Answer: True (?). I thought that there was going to be some indication that
  >checkpoints 5.1, 5.2, etc., _cannot_ be considered inapplicable but I don't
  >see them so I give "True" as the correct answer.  I have not examined the
  >document fully, but I don't see such a provision.
  >b. No DOM Support in Singular User Agent
  >True or False: "It is possible for a singular (non-composite) user agent to
  >not implement the DOM and yet achieve any of the three levels of claim
  >(single-A, double-A, and triple-A)."
  JRG: No.  Any claim must support implementing and exporting the DOM.  There 
  will always be disabilities that will require some type of assistive 
  technology that is very specialized.
CMN I agree with Jon and Eric in the rest (aside from the open-ended bit,
which I haven't checked carefully yet.


Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 04:02:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:28 UTC