W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: accessibility supported questions

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:35:36 +0100
To: (wrong string) ón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>,Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090331083536.M54860@ieee.org>
Ramón

> - Any technology that is only supported in 
> Windows can not be considered as "accessibility supported", because 
> Windows is not free, so if users with a disability are forced to buy 
> Windows, there is an additional cost for people with disability. The 
> same could be aplicable to Mac platform, of course. - Any technology 
> that is only supported by JAWS and/or Window Eyes can not be 
> considered as "accessibility supported", because these programs are 
> really expensive, meaning that there is an additional cost for a 
> disabled person.

Except in a corporate environment, where the platform, technology, etc, will
be a known

Kind regards
Harry


~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
 We do not inherit the Earth from our Parents-
 We are simply Borrowing it from our Children!

 Join 'Consumer Resistance Against Packaging' at
http://apps.new.facebook.com/causes/57239?recruiter_id=12448357
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:54:07 +0200
Subject: Re: accessibility supported questions

> Hi, Phill.
> 
> If I understand your answer, it doesn't matter for compliance if 
> there is assistive technology that is able to interpret that 
> content. So the content can comply, but nobody can access it? If 
> there is no screen reader capable to consistently render the content,
>  it can not be considered compliant, I think.
> 
> For me, "Accessibility Supported" should be understood as "there are 
> enough user agents (including assistive techonolgy) that can render 
> the content, and there is enough variety of user agents of this kind 
> that have no additional cost for a person with a disability, 
> compared to a person without a disability". Of course, in this 
> context, perhaps "enough" can be only one unique free user agent 
> that works on a free operating system.
> 
> This has the following consequences:
> 
> - Adobe PDF, Adobe Flash and WAI-ARIA can not be considered as 
> "accessibility supported" until they are supported by user agents 
> and assistive technology. - Any technology that is only supported in 
> Windows can not be considered as "accessibility supported", because 
> Windows is not free, so if users with a disability are forced to buy 
> Windows, there is an additional cost for people with disability. The 
> same could be aplicable to Mac platform, of course. - Any technology 
> that is only supported by JAWS and/or Window Eyes can not be 
> considered as "accessibility supported", because these programs are 
> really expensive, meaning that there is an additional cost for a 
> disabled person.
> 
> Perhaps I am missunderstanding the concept of "accessibility 
> supported"...? What do you think about it?
> 
> Regards,
> Ramón Corominas.
> 
> Phill Jenkins escribió:
> > Seems like your are testing the screen reader's support of the form, 
> > not the form itself.  Did you report your inconsistencies to the 
> > developers of the screen reader?
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 08:36:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:31 GMT