W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Closed non-embedded content???

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 06:00:21 +0100
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP66AE41DAFA3E0A84776D01FE7C0@phx.gbl>
CC: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Fascinating discussion...

Unfortunately, I don't think we can force publishers to expose their content...

However, there have been some successes up here between university accommodations departments and publishers... But so far they seem like mostly one offs, hard fought individual cases... 

I'll be at TPAC this week, not sure of my availability for calls this week.

I'm very hopeful, and think we are making good progress on difficult questions...

Cheers
David MacDonald 
From my iPad 

On 2012-10-27, at 6:01 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:

> I agree.
> 
> Hmmmm
> 
> so maybe the answer to the questions is 
> 
> 1) If given the choice of a reader that ALWAYS honors the "do not read aloud"  or "do not expose to AT" flag  (no accessible mode)  and one that allows the user to override it (accessible mode) the gov should choose the latter.     
> 
> Of course that wont help if the book vendor will not allow any books to be sold that would play on a reader that allows the flag to be overridden -- or wont allow any reader to use their decryption if it does  allow flay override.       
> 
> i can understand not wanting to allow screen reader access because it allow easy capture of text.  But arent we so close to having software that can visually read text off the screen that anyone who really want to steal text can just steal it that way?  
> 
> 
> Gregg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net
> 
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:59 AM, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Gregg, I concur with your analysis, and want to respond question you raise.
>> 
>>> The question is: 
>>> can players meet access regs if they honor the" do not provide access" flag? 
>> 
>> A parallel situation comes up pretty often in the Federal sphere.  Really it is *any* software that *might* be used in a way that is inaccessible.  Agencies have responsibility to (1) procure software that is as accessible as possible, but then (2) develop and promote policies and practices that ensure accessibility using that software.
>> 
>> I am reminded of a review I was involved with recently for a webinar package which had two modes for mutual web surfing.  The default mode, screen sharing, let participants see the presenter's mouse cursor and made sure everyone was scrolled to the same place on a web page.  There was another mode though that used the participants browser for this, and had the strong advantage of being compatible with screen reading software.  It made things more complicated, but it would be a mistake to ban this webinar software because it allowed an inaccessible mode.
>> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 05:01:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:47 UTC