Re: Proposal: expanding/modifying Guideline 2.1 and its SCs (2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3) to cover Touch+AT

On 14/07/2016 23:43, David MacDonald wrote:

> ​. Say you and me decide to go into business. We create the "David and
> Patrick magic hand gesture translator."​ It is assistive technology.
> "Accessibility supported" language is intended to require pages to work
> with assistive technology. This is not web content so WCAG no
> requirements on it. HOWEVER, it is assistive technology, and therefore
> if 2.1.1 applies to ALL non-pointer technologies, then it would have to
> include this too. That is a very expansive rabbit hole I would say. Go
> to CSUN and 2.1.1 would require web pages to work with EVERY Assitive
> Technology.

The AT would hook into the OS/platform's standardised APIs (or hook into 
the UAs like browsers through additional plugins, like Dragon does for 
instance).  There is (at least to my mind) a tacit understanding that 
UAs (including AT) need to work in a standardised and consistent way. 
Otherwise ANYTHING in WCAG could be up for discussion (e.g. we assume 
that UAs understand HTML). That would at least by my expectation, though 
I see WCAG dodges that bullet and/or gets itself muddled:

"This topic raises the question of how many or which assistive 
technologies must support a Web technology in order for that Web 
technology to be considered "accessibility supported". The WCAG Working 
group and the W3C do not specify which or how many assistive 
technologies must support a Web technology in order for it to be 
classified as accessibility supported. This is a complex topic and one 
that varies both by environment and by language."
[...]
"The Working Group, therefore, limited itself to defining what 
constituted support and defers the judgment of how much, how many, or 
which AT must support a technology to the community and to entities 
closer to each situation that set requirements for an organization, 
purchase, community, etc."

So if "accessibility supported" is not a phrase that can be applied to 
the assistive technology itself, fine to drop it.

> ​We addressed this in our 2.5.1 proposal ​
>
> "​2.5.1 ​
> Touch with Assistive Technology: All functions available by touch are
> still available by touch after platform assistive technology that remaps
> touch gestures is turned on. (Level A)
> ​"​
>
> The qualifier is that it is limited to "
> platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures"
> ​.

Note that not so long ago (few years?), TalkBack didn't come as standard 
on Android and had to be downloaded/installed as a separate app. So even 
on mobile, it's not guaranteed to always be as cut and dry

> Now as we try to genericize ​the mobile requirements, to try to apply to
> all touch environments, we have a problem, because many on Windows
> platforms, the main AT is not delivered with the platform, it is
> purchased separated (ZoomText, JAWS, Read & Write Gold, etc...).

Narrator comes with Windows 8.1 / 10 by default. It's quite limited, but 
it is there...and on touchscreen laptop/tablet/2-in-1 devices, it allows 
for gesture-based navigation too.

>So how
> do we characterize mainstream technology without forcing developers to
> support the "D&P magic hand gesture translator" and every other Ma & Pop
> AT out there.

WCAG's glossary https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#atdef already says that 
we're talking about *mainstream* user agents. It should likely also talk 
about *mainstream* assistive techologies (because in its current 
wording, it allows for Ma & Pop AT that runs in conjunction with a 
mainstream user agent, meaning that currently ALL SCs need to also cover 
the Ma & Pop scenario whether they like it or not?

I think that's a discussion that warrants a much wider participation 
than just the mobile TF. It feels like WCAG itself lacks a definition of 
assistive technology

Certainly the concept of *mainstream* AT that relies on standard 
platform/UA interfaces/APIs should be mentioned somewhere in the glossary.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 00:34:37 UTC