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

Re: Last call comments from WCAG working group

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:47:43 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I think the conformance section needs to be conservative here.  If there 
are no standard I/O or accessibility APIs then the user agent cannot claim 
conformance with this document.  This sounds like a closed box situation 
that wendy[1] brought up earlier and I suggested that a different set of 
guidelines is needed in this situation.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0368.html

At 01:31 PM 12/7/2000 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>After some discussion with Charles, it would seem that people have
>different interpretations of checkpoint 5.4. The question seems to
>be: Do UA developers have to provide access to ATs even when there
>are no standard (system) APIs for doing so?
>1) For access to content, the answer is you have to implement the
>    DOM, so there is no issue.
>2) For access to UI controls, checkpoint 5.4 says:
>     Provide programmatic read and write access to user agent
>     user interface controls using standard APIs ...."
>    Does this mean:
>     - You must provide access using standard APIs.
>     - You must provide access, and you must use standard APIs
>       (when they exist) to do so?
>If the interpretation is the latter, then I think Wendy's question
>is answered: UA developers must always use some API. (Talking with
>AT developers to create a good one is, in my opinion, out of scope
>for this document though a good thing to do.)
>Added as issue #457
>   http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#457
>  _ Ian
>Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> >   Responses in JRG:
> >
> >   JRG: If the developer is relying on the VM for some accessibility
> >   functionalities required by UAAG, the developer may only be able to claim
> >   conformance for certain operating systems that they can demonstrate
> >   actually meet the guidelines.  Therefore they may not be able to claim
> >   conformance for every OS with a Java VM.
> > CMN
> > But they can claim conformance with "any conforming Java VM".
> >
> > Wendy
> >   >It was my understanding of this section that if a standard accessibility
> >   >API does not exist for an operating system, that the developer must 
> create
> >   >and use their own.  This would cause an AT developer to learn a 
> different
> >   >API for each browser on a platform that did not have an 
> accessibility API.
> > [and good reasons why this can be a problem]
> >
> > In actual fact it makes life a bit painful for the developers. 
> Basically, if
> > there isn't an API they have to make one. If there is, they have to use it.
> > So if they start working on a system without one, and they make their own,
> > and then a later version of the system introduces a standard one, they 
> cannot
> > conform for the later versions of the system until they change to it. Which
> > gives them a strong incentive to work with the developers of the underlying
> > OS's, but doesn't just leave a requirement as vague as "work with some 
> other
> > folks"
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2000 13:46:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:29 UTC