- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:15:51 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "w3c-wai-ua@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
- Message-ID: <CA+=z1W=2-subWixrvqYg=bM705ZbO3jdbgrVSb32v6pMj8kPLQ@mail.gmail.com>
I like Jan's and Chaals' reasoning. UAAG10 would have looked much better with partial/detailed claims. We had lots of implementations in lots of areas, but never all implementations in 1 browser. Jim On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:49:38 +0200, Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca> > wrote: > > I'm not sure.... >> >> Let's imagine XYZ is a run-time environment that allows the same >> application to run on various OS's. XYZ has plans to implement an >> accessibility API, but has not yet shipped this feature. If we bar any user >> agent built for XYZ from claiming "Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform >> Limitations", then we are saying they should instead simply not conform, no >> matter how many other accessibility features they include. >> > > There are two kinds of conformance. The nice, short-hand "we conform to > double A level" (which gives easy grading, but is overall not very relevant > to actual users), and "here is a detailed statement of what we offer, point > by point, even though we don't actually meet any level" (or where something > only meets level-A, but actually does everything relevant to some set of > users, from both double- and triple-A as well)... > > Since we can't *stop* people making partial conformance claims (W3C > lacking a police force), and since I would argue that it isn't even a good > idea to try, we should just call them detailed conformance statements or > something, and not worry ourselves about explaining *why* something doesn't > conform. > > In the best case, we'll get more information about conformance that will > help people make better decisions, and implementors will compete across the > spectrum (much as they do for HTML5 benchmarks and the like) instead of > stopping at some particular level. > > > On the other hand if we allow "Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform >> Limitations", we let the user agent developer put a foot on the bottom rung >> of the UAAG conformance ladder while putting at least some kind of public >> pressure on the platform to improve its platform-level accessibility >> features. >> > > Yes, this is important. > > cheers > > > Cheers, >> Jan >> >> (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. >> jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 >> Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/ >> Faculty of Design | OCAD University >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jeanne@w3.org] >>> Sent: June-21-12 3:36 PM >>> To: Greg Lowney >>> Cc: Richards, Jan; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org >>> Subject: Re: UAAG2 ACTION-648 Propose a conformance applicability note... >>> >>> This is a great example that I think we should incorporate into the text. >>> >>> On 6/21/2012 4:32 PM, Greg Lowney wrote: >>> > 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<http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/#conf-levels> >>> >> >>> >> Cheers, >>> >> Jan >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ______________________________**_ >>> Jeanne Spellman >>> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative >>> jeanne@w3.org >>> >>> >> > > -- > Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com > > -- Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756 voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9264 http://www.tsbvi.edu/ "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 22:16:18 UTC