W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: WCAG 2.0 and scripting

From: <Accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:51:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0709270830480.14101@fzneg.arg>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Harry Loots wrote:

>
> > > David Woolley commented
> > Patrick Lauke commented
>
> > > WCAG compliance is often a contractual requirement (typically by
> > > universities and public services).  I believe, in some <snip>
> >
> > Absolutely. If it's written in the contract ("compliance with WCAG
> > 1.0") or if you're operating under something (antiquated) like the
>
> In this case 1.0 AA was specified in contract - so the software provider will
> have to address the issue, regardless; but that's just by-the-way, as i'd like
>
> The emphasis being, i guess, on the fact that not all UAs provide Javascript
> support - and while i fully agree that people who are to lazy to upgrade their
> browsers, i have sympathy for those who use AT, and who have to pay for their
> software (isn't it ironic that those of us who have full use of our eyes,
> ears, hands get our browsers for free, while those who have disabilities have
> to pay 700/$1400+ for the latest version of for example JAWS).

one of the major advantages of Linux and EMACSpeak is that it is
little or no cost...and it is a full featured modern AT. they are
others such as Gnopernicus. nor would I consider PINE or LYNX
obsolete they are still supported and upgraded they are designed as
"TEXT" browsers and they are very powerfull text browsers.

> So from what i understand from this discussion is that the real test would be
> whether Javascript (or ECMAScript) would be deemed to be accessibility
> supported (previously described as being 'in the baseline'), which strokes
>
> > > Incidentally, I take the view that accessibility should be
> > > considered as
> > > universal accessibility, and in the UK, I think that is government
> > > policy ("the digital divide") even if there is no
> > > legislation.
> >
> > That would remain to be tested by case law. The argument would then
> > be along the lines of "this site uses Javascript, and it has been
> > tested and proven to work with all modern screen readers, but locks
> > out users of older screen readers, or EMACspeak users on Linux,
> >  etc...is this discrimination?". I'd argue that it isn't, but that's

well yes and no, under the USA laws for other screen readers that
requires the use of proprietary software, must provide that software
and the prerequisite software at a cost that is no more than the
equivalent (in this case for free) if it must be used.  THis is fine
if it is a closed system such as within a company when all equipment
and software is provided, but when opened to the public it presents
all sorts of issues.  Non Discrimination means "Non discrimination"
and if the AT is provided via an alternate operating system it could
be considered a government endorsing a private product.  this is in
many countries against the law.   what more could I ask for, build
something that a govenment requires and I'm the only person that sells
it.  !!!
(sort of like the Government saying that only Fords are allowed on the
interstate, AFTER you have already aquired a Mercedes)

> > my own take. It all depends on context, anyway. If it were a
> > government website which offers essential information for citizens
> > then the technical requirement bar should be set low.

there is in at least the USA, but the big difference is weather the
site "holds itself out to the public"

> i'm on the side of 'universal accessibility' - and i think so is Sir Tim, who
> said: "The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone
> regardless of disability is an essential aspect,"

and for better or worse the less one has probably the more they need
what is offered.

> The final decider in the UK would of course be whether obligations under the
> DDA have been met, and not whether WCAG 1 or 2 have been complied with. You
> may recall that Massey stated during the DRC investigation (2004?) that though
> some sites were technically compliant they fell short of being truly
> accessible. But that's a separate argument...

and what is "truely" accessible is very simple,  "if I can use it, it
is accessible, if I can't it isn't"  and everyone has a different "I
can" level.

good luck
wish I had the magic answer.  What would help more than anything else
would be these big guys coding stuff to W3C rather than what they
want. the idea of course is to make something everyone will want and
force my proprietary "X" onto the system..  the difference between
Linux and the other guys is that SUSE works with FC with Debian, etc.
heck windows 98 won't work half the time with Vista... good grief.
(ok crawling off my soapbox)


Bob


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
occasionally a true patriot must defend his country from its' government
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
   ASCII Ribbon Campaign. . . . . . . . . . . . accessBob
   .NO HTML/PDF/RTF/MIME in e-mail. . . . . . . accessys@smartnospam.net
   .NO MSWord docs in e-mail . . . .. . . . . . Access Systems, engineers
   .NO attachments in e-mail, .*LINUX powered*. access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 12:46:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:11:52 UTC