|

User Agent Implementation Report for Second Candidate Recommendation

Nearby: UAWG home page and How to do a user agent evaluation

Individual Evaluations

Evaluations Included in Report

1. Internet Explorer 6.0 for Windows 9x/Me/2000/XP (HTML 4.01, CSS1, CSS2 and SMIL 2.0)
2. GW-Micro Window-Eyes (with Internet Explorer 5.5) 4.11 for Windows (HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2 )
3. JAWS (with Internet Explorer 6.0) 4.02 for Windows 9x/Me/2000/XP (HTML 4.01, CSS1, CSS2 and SMIL 2.0)
4. Opera Browser 6.0 for Windows (HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2)
5. Mozilla Browser 0.9.9 for Windows (HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2)
6. IBM Home Page Reader 3.02 for Microsoft Windows (HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2)
7. Internet Explorer 5.0 for Macintosh OS 9.x (HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2)
8. Accessible Browser Project at UIUC (uses Internet Explorer) beta for Windows (HTML 4.01, CSS 1 and CSS 2)
9. Real Media Player (Audio and Video content only) 6.0.9.584 for Microsoft Windows (Audio, Video and SMIL)
10. Windows Media Player for Windows XP 8.0 for Windows XP (Audio and Video)
11. Grins SMIL2 Player for Windows 9x (SMIL 1.0, 2.0)
12. Adobe PDF Reader 5.0 for Microsoft Windows (Portable Document Format (PDF))

Pending Evaluations

1. Konqueror 3.0 for UNIX
   Formats: HTML 4.01, CSS1 and CSS2
   Reviewer: Ian Jacobs and Dirk Mueller
2. Quicktime Player
   Formats: Audo, Video and SMIL

Previous Evaluations

1. Jaws 3.7 and Internet Explorer 5.5
2. Internet Explorer 5.5 for Windows
3. Opera 5.12 for Windows
4. Internet Explorer 5.0 for Windows
5. Amaya 2.1
6. IBM Home Page Reader 2.5 for Windows
7. Evaluation of HAL, MSIE, NS, and Opera (on Windows 95; 6 September draft)
8. Netscape Navigator 4.6 on Linux
9. P W WebSpeak 3.0 for Windows
10. RealPlayer Basic 7
11. IBM Home Page Reader 2.5 for Windows (Candidate Recommendation 1 of UAAG 1.0)
12. Lynx 2.8.3 with second last call UAAG 1.0.
13. Opera 5.1 for 9 April 2001 draft of UAAG 1.0

Rating Information

Rating Scale

C: Complete Implementation

VG: Very Good Implementation, almost all requirements satisfied

G: Good Implementation, most important requirements satisfied

P: Poor Implementation, some requirements satisfied and/or difficult for user to access feature

NI: Not Implemented

NR: Not Rated

NA: Not Applicable

Summary of Checkpoint Implementation

Checkpoints with Low Implementation Experience

Note: The Max rating is an indication of how close the checkpoint is to having one complete implementation. The Average rating is an indication of how widely the checkpoint is implemented across all users agents in this report, for checkpoints with only one complete implementation. User agents that mark the checkpoint as not applicable are not included in the average calculation for that checkpoint.

Priority 1 Checkpoints

No complete implementation experience

4.6 Position captions. (Max rating: G )

One complete implementation

1.2 Activate event handlers. (Ave rating: P+ )

3.5 Toggle content refresh. (Ave rating: P- )

4.4 Slow multimedia. (Ave rating: P- )

10.1 Table orientation. (Ave rating: G )

Priority 2 Checkpoints

No complete implementation experience

3.6 Toggle redirects. (Max rating: NI )

4.8 Control other multimedia. (Max rating: NI )

5.5 Confirm form submission. (Max rating: P )

5.6 Confirm fee links. (Max rating: NI )

10.5 Outline view. (Max rating: VG )

One complete implementation

4.7 Slow other multimedia. (Ave rating: P )

4.11 Control other volume. (Ave rating: C )

5.3 Manual viewport open only. (Ave rating: P+ )

6.8 DOM CSS access. (Ave rating: G )

9.5 No events on focus change. (Ave rating: P )

9.6 Show event handlers. (Ave rating: P )

11.2 Current author bindings. (Ave rating: P- )

Priority 3 Checkpoints

No complete implementation experience

2.10 Toggle placeholders. (Max rating: NI )

2.11 Alert unsupported language. (Max rating: VG )

One complete implementation

5.7 Manual viewport close only. (Ave rating: P- )

9.10 Configure important elements. (Ave rating: P- )

Disclaimer

In order to verify the utility and applicability of the Guidelines, the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) is testing the Guidelines by reviewing a variety of user agents (user agents for the purpose of this report may consist of combinations of several technologies) on a variety of platforms. This review will help us determine which requirements of the guidelines have been implemented and which requirements have not.

The UAWG Working Group welcomes additional reviews. Each review should include the above disclaimer. Reviews should also clearly state the product version, operating system version, and any other information necessary to allow someone else to repeat the evaluation. If possible use the submit the review in the XML evaluation report. A how to document is being prepared to guide reviewers though the evaluation of a product.

Report Tool Information

The report generation tool is based on XML and uses XML formatted evaluations on individual user agents to compile a full report on checkpoint implementation experience. Reviewers following the evaluation format can have their reviews easily add to the implementation report.

• Implementation Report XML file and Implementation Report DTD
• User agent evaluation report DTD and XML template for HTML and CSS user agent

|

Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document useand software licensingrules apply.