Hi Wayne,
I think you got the discussion started on the wrong problem. If your
concern is that some technologies don't have the capabilities yet, that
developers will need to pass WCAG 2.1, that's an accessibility support
question. When WCAG 2.0 came out, and for a long time thereafter, many
non-desktop devices could not be made accessible because AT or UA just
didn't have the capabilities you needed for them.
It is not at all unreasonable for us to say that not all devices that are
WCAG 2.0 accessibility supported, will also be accessibility supported for
WCAG 2.1. So maybe Android and IOS will have to improve their UAs / ATs
before anyone can claim WCAG 2.1 compliance on those devices. We can
certainly argue if that should be the case. What I would say is that
doesn't mean letting go of technology independent. The whole "one web" idea
has been a pillar of W3C thinking for a long time now, and one that has
been very good for accessibility.
Wilco
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The main thing I am reacting to is the claim in many responses that
> feature x is not available on mobile hence authors should not be required
> to encode in a way that enables accessibility support for x. This recurs in
> many external responses. I though we might want to discuss this before
> coming up with an answer. This has appeared in Resize Content and adaptive
> content.
>
> The public appears that technology independence has this least common
> platform aspect.
>
> Wayne
--
*Wilco Fiers*
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG
