RE: Making "recognized" a high level condition in UAAG2

Jan and all,

Thanks for working this issue. I think that this represents progress in identifying when a success criterion is not applicable.

Please consider these suggested revisions to Jan's text:

==

Maximal Accessibility

Each claimant is encouraged to define a user agent that addresses the highest conformance level possible (A, AA, or AAA) and satisfies the greatest number of additional success criteria beyond the claimed level. Doing this may necessitate defining the user agent may include multiple software components (e.g., browser, plug-ins, extensions). Thus, a claimant could define a user agent as including browser X with plug-in Y, or could define it as including browser X without any plug-ins. 

Applicability

The conformance claim defines the user agent and asserts that user agent satisfies all applicable success criteria. There are three major rationales for a success criterion not being applicable.

There are three major rationales for a success criterion not being applicable to a given user agent.

1. Success criterion has a level that is higher than the claimed level. For example, if a user agent that is claimed to conform at the double-A level, then only success criteria at the single-A and double-A levels are applicable; triple-A success criteria are not applicable. As noted above, while satisfying success criteria higher than the claimed conformance level is encouraged, it is not required.

2. Unrecognizable content. A success criterion that refers to semantic features of web content  (e.g., text alternatives to non-text content, headings, keyboard commands, time limits, etc.) is applicable only when those features are implemented according to standard semantics for the web content technology. When those features are implemented via other means (e.g., custom scripting), the content features are not considered recognizable and the success criterion does not apply.

3. Lack of developer control. A success criterion is not applicable where the developer does not have control of relevant feature. For example, the success criterion applies to the user agent user interface as it is provided by the developer. It does apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the developer (e.g., user modifications of default settings, third-party plug-ins). 

Thanks!

- Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:04 AM
To: UAWG
Subject: Making "recognized" a high level condition in UAAG2

Hi all,

On the Jan 31 call, Jim took this action:
ACTION-798: Review 'recognized' in SC to make a top level statement similar to device independence at the beginning of the document - perhaps an applicability note and something in a conformance claim..( https://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/actions/798)

And Eric's excellent review also highlights the repetition of "recognized".

I'd like to suggest the following "ported" ATAG2 wording along with a few other relevant high level conditions:
 
1. Unrecognizable content: Any success criteria that refer to semantic features of web content  (e.g., text alternatives to non-text content, headings, keyboard commands, time limits, etc.) will only apply when those features are implemented according to standard semantics for the web content technology. When those features are implemented via other means (e.g., custom scripting), the content features are not considered recognizable and the success criteria do not apply.

2. User agent  systems: As per the UAAG 2.0 definition of user agent, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements. For example, a base user agent could make use of plug-in to provide certain functionality and a web-based user agent may rely on base user agent features (e.g., keyboard navigation, find functions, etc.). 

3. Developer control: The success criteria only apply to the user agent user interface as it is provided by the developer. They do not apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the developer (e.g., user modifications of default settings, third-party plug-ins). 

Cheers,
Jan


(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 17:52:40 UTC