Re: Should WCAG explicitly talk about *mainstream* assistive technologies?

I agree with Kurt, and I think that linking the notion of "mainstream"
either to, or as a replacement for, "UAAG compliant AT" would, as Jason
notes, link it to a 'relevant standard' as well as perhaps return a bit of
lime-light to UAAG.

+1 to clarity as well Patrick.

JF

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 15/07/2016 15:10, White, Jason J wrote:
>
>> */[Jason] This is a fundamentally important observation. The type of
>> assistive technology under consideration could be regarded as satisfying
>> the following requirements./*
>>
>> */1.      /*It is available to the public (whether for free or on a
>> commercial basis).
>>
>> */2.      /*It supports relevant standards so that the content author
>> need not specifically support it with measures not required by other
>> standards-conformant AT.
>>
>> Such definitions are much more valuable and specific than words such as
>> “mainstream”.
>>
>
> Agree, was probably trying to get away with proposing a minimally
> invasive, but too wooly, tweak to the definition. I'm all for more clarity!
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion