Re: UAAG2 ACTION-648 Propose a conformance applicability note...

This may be a case where we want to use a term other than platform, because we may need to distinguish between aspects of the operating environment, which the app cannot control, from other platform layers that are developer options.

For example, take the success criterion that requires exposing information via a platform accessibility API. If the Foo OS doesn't provide such an API then a browser running on it could legitimately claim non-compliance due to platform limitation. However, Windows and OS X *do* provide such an API, so a browser could not claim "platform limitation" even if they base based on a toolkit or runtime library that does not support the API. That's because in the former case, the UA developer has no control over whether or not the platform API exists, but in the latter case the UA developer does have a choice as to which toolkit or runtime library they will use.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: UAAG2 ACTION-648 Propose a conformance applicability note...
From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 6/19/2012 7:43 AM
> Instead of a conformance applicability note...I propose adding a new (partial) conformance type:
>
> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations (Level A, AA, or AAA)
> This conformance option may be selected when a user agent is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility service, monochrome screen). The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should explain what platform features are missing.
>
> Adapted from ATAG 2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-levels
>
> Cheers,
> Jan
>
>