W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:18:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1608231108320.24419@server2.shellworld.net>
Good morning everyone,
Before I start let me express my appreciation  to each of you for your 
commitment to inclusion.  At the end of the day the resources alone at least 
for me  fortifies my hope.
I have what I trust is a simple question,  although  the situation is a 
tad complex.
A couple of years back at least we discussed the technical baseline 
clause, how some companies use this to avoid compliance  even with basic 
things like keyboard functioning by stating they use say jaws, You must 
as well.
My understanding then was that a company cannot place such requirements on
  the general public.
Can anyone document for me if this remains the case?
I have one of those situations that if I used what the company is claiming 
I must use...it would actually do me physical harm.
so I want to share with the mediator that making such requirements 
violates WACG in general.  I am in Ontario and was told privately that the 
AODA  incorporates WACG into its standards.  The Ontario Human Rights Code 
has a greater level of mandate  undue hardship,  meaning regardless the 
company is violating the latter, but they are claiming the former.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Kare
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2016 15:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 23 August 2016 15:19:10 UTC