W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:00:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvc4Cnm23iEdPAz8uSSFJwKBEAVVNzUzo3xbkxkBYtP2fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, To Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg,

So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you live
without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text?

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura


On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid.
>
> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have it or the
> SC will fail general applicability.
>
> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but  in the exploration of
> specific SC.   For the most part - that has not been necessary.
>
> And discussion of specific SC are underway now.
>
> But if you have a blanket  “we will never use this”  then you might block
> some SC(s) from being able to get in at all.
>
> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by case basis.
>     It is not needed by most all but may be needed by one or another.    So
> lets see.
>
>
> g
>
>
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J
>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language that gives
>> an author power to simply skip over an SC just because they use a
>> technology with poor accessibility support.  Any exceptions should have
>> clear restrictions and backup accessibility support (as does "Images of
>> Text", for example).  For WCAG 2.1, with or without the language is
>> probably not the question.  Rather, what is the compromising language for
>> now until we get to Silver?
>>
>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which web
>> technologies are "major", but in order to talk about future-proofing we
>> need to discuss responsibility.  And currently, the responsibility chain
>> has a very weak link from author to user that is only going to get more
>> important to strengthen as we talk about adaptation, linearization,
>> personalization, and other needs.
>>
>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web
>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards.  The WCAG
>> buck stops there obviously in its current form.  The problem is that even
>> if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, trying to remain
>> technology-agnostic would result in the same core issue: no responsibility
>> is formally placed on web technology developers (at least not outside the
>> W3C).  If we really want to produce guidelines which are both independent
>> of current technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are going to
>> have to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with
>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or otherwise
>> conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines).
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM
>> To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> <greggvan@umd.edu>
>> Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; Repsher,
>> Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; To Henry <shawn@w3.org>; Jim
>> Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>; Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>;
>> w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf
>> <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC
>> has support in 2 technologies?
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
>>> If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used" language
>>> on all of our SCs?
>> [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at all. I
>> think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used to meet
>> WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies in use today, I
>> think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier,
>> HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to consider at
>> the moment.
>> Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in mind,
>> and WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do agree with Gregg
>> that major user interface revolutions may well be coming, but they need to
>> be based on implementation technologies that adequately support
>> accessibility.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and
>> delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your compliance.
>>
>> ________________________________
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 21:01:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 08:04:09 UTC