W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: SV: SV: in-page text-to-speech

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:25:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SAb-J3VVRa42VujAWFbrdOwXdCJ2OfcA=vvDQwhJFh_eA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Morten Tollefsen <morten@medialt.no>
Cc: Brian Cragun <cragun@us.ibm.com>, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I have three comments on this:

1. Accommodation is not accessibility.  Many sites that feature
in-page text-to-speech or font size adjustment assume that their very
limited accommodations amount to providing accessibility.  Many of
these sites fail much of WCAG 2.0, especially the ability to enlarge
text-only to 200%.  The text-to-speech usually lacks speed control, so
it is a poor accommodation.   Of course in this list we should include
high contrast, an accommodation for some, but not all. All I want is a
website that is flexible enough to use my own styles and my text to
speech engine.
2. The range of accommodation is so broad for low vision that
unprofessional guesses usually miss a majority of people with low
vision.  We need choice, not some programmers guess of what we need.

I am going to start a new tread called. What do you use for
accommodation?  How does it apply to accessibility?

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 15:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:45 UTC