Re: Touch with Assistive Technology

>  It proposes an editorial amendment to the conformance requirements ensuring that it is understood that conformance requires that author created views targeted at a specific device need to conform on that device

careful

Changing the conformance model — changes ALL OF THE SC.  They were written depending on that conformance model. 
 So this kind of changes the mantra that 2.1 doesnt change the 2.0 provisions…   


Also — The WCAG 2.0 did not assume that author created views targeted at a specific device need to conform on that device.    We were more looking at it form the point of view that the content needed to be viewable in ONE manner.  Not all manners or forms.    In fact it is baked into the conformance (at least one version is accessible).    

Not all content can be accessible to all people on all platforms.  
What if no screen reader exists for a device/platform? —  then no blind access.    
What if no player with caption presentation exists on a device/platform?   no deaf access to media
low vision users who need large print?  - no meaningful Web access on iPhone 4’s  for example (or any iPhone?)  [You can’t get one word across the screen in any Large Print for anyone with serious low vision]

We need to really think them through hard to understand their consequences and implications.  This is what makes this so hard. 

Don’t have a quick answer — but each time we propose something we have to think of all the ways that it won’t make sense or won’t work — and not just the time and places it would. Otherwise we create unintended problems and end up with a 2.1 that can’t be widely adopted because it creates too many limitations (i.e.. it is not generally applicable) 

scratching head on how to approach this…. 

g




Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu