- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:27:02 -0400
- To: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: "jimallan@tsbvi.edu" <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, kelly.ford@microsoft.com, kim@redstartsystems.com, UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Hi Simon, The mobile apps as user agent issue is not wrapped up. The discussion has spread to the WAI Coordination Group (CG) because several other WAI groups are also involved in the outcome of this discussion. UAWG are going to discuss this at our meeting on 13 June, to prepare our analysis of the argument. Jim & Kelly will present our thoughts at the next CG meeting on 19 June, and hopefully have some conclusions from CG for our UAWG meeting on 20 June. That said, this an interesting angle that I don't think anyone has presented. I think that the challenge is to find the delimiter (of what is or is not a mobile user agent) that is flexible to go beyond our current hardware/software. Even though we want to address technology beyond W3C, saying that a user agent supports any of the Open Web Platform (especially the Web APIs) may have the appropriate flexibility. I don't want us looking back in 3 years with regrets that we were so shortsighted in 2013. Several of the WAI team were discussing the problem at a meeting this week, and agree that it is a difficult issue. I have been characterizing the UAWG position that: "We all agree that Angry Birds is not a user agent, and that a mobile magazine reader app is, but we don't have consensus on an American Airlines app." One of my colleagues immediately responded with an HTML5 version of Angry Birds http://chrome.angrybirds.com/! (To which I replied: That's content -- WCAG covers it!) We had informal agreement that we want to find flexible way to include mobile applications, because it serves the needs of people with disabilities to improve the accessibility of mobile apps. I have been thinking that if we have A success criteria that are too difficult for mobile, and that is our reason to not cover mobile apps, then I think I will propose that we raise the level of those SC that are A because they are easy for desktop. Source Code view doesn't provide such big benefit to accessibility (only for expert users), and I would rather see that as an AA or AAA if it would mean we could provide better guidance to mobile apps. (Keep reducing the number of level A!). Cheers! jeanne On 6/7/2013 4:29 AM, Simon Harper wrote: > Guys, > > not sure if this is now finsihed - and I don't want to bing it up again > just because the looping is taking too much time and reaching concencus > seems to be happening very much. > > Anyhow, I had a thought that we could define the guidelines to fulfill > based on how they handle technologies within the open web platform > http://www.w3.org/wiki/Open_Web_Platform > > the definitive list of open w3c technologies... > > Maybe it's now all wrapped up - just a thought? > > Cheers > > -- _______________________________ Jeanne Spellman W3C Web Accessibility Initiative jeanne@w3.org
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 11:27:15 UTC