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

Re: accessibility supported questions

From: <Accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:57:46 -0500 (EST)
To: (wrong string) ón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0903310845200.29501@fzneg.arg>

I think you have gone to the basic concept and gotten it right.

the key part of at least USA law is that it cannot be considered
accessible or compliant if it requires a person with a disability to
have a specific piece of equipment or software that is not required of
everyone or is not provided free to everyone who needs it.

some questions

. there are a few places left in the world which is still using MSDOS
or open DOS and it is the "State of the art"  should we still have
cascading styles to that level.

. what about connection speeds, how fast is a minimum speed needed.
(my fist modem was 16.5baud, no zeros, should we still be required to
meet that level,  1,200 baud??  2,400 baud???)

. how far down does it need to cascade.

. backward compatability,  Current versions of MS word cannot read
older versions of MS word even. and vice versa ??   how far back is
far enough back???

. I've read somewhere that the gov testing (and can't find the cite)
that the base level for e-mail is PINE and for a web browser it is
LYNX.   is this accurate?   do we still need to go that far???  (PS
I'm writing and sending this and read this list in PINE so I know that
it works there,  but???)

. everyone likes to work on the cutting edge but many people with
disabilities are on the edge of poverty and cannot afford upgrading
every few years.

. many people with disabilities (and others) just don't want to
change, they have figured out the assistive tech they have and it
works for them, so do they need the newer bells and whistles, and
should we force them to aquire these?

I am sure there are more but these are the kinds of questions that
users are asking....

want a real experience, try using Second life with a screen reader...


On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, [ISO-8859-1] Ramón Corominas wrote:

> 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?
> >

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 Tuesday, 31 March 2009 13:58:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:39 UTC