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

RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: David Best <davebest@cogeco.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:48:22 -0400
To: "'Howard Leicester'" <howard_leicester@btconnect.com>, "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL'" <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001e01d1fe40$78e71ff0$6ab55fd0$@cogeco.ca>

has no clause that allows an Ontario organization to dictate what assistive 
technologies are to be used by any person with a disability. PART II INFORMATION 
AND COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS, section 14, states that the WCAG-AA is the accepted 
level of conformance for Accessible websites and web content. This applies to the 
Employment and Customer Service standards for making information available; such 
as accessible formats and accessible supports. However, it appears we have a false 
sense of compliance in Ontario, and minimal enforcement. As many organization 
websites claim WCAG-AA compliance based on an Accessibility Consultants 
certification (which really means nothing). As an example, many Ontario 
organizations post an accessibility compliance statement based on their use of the 
eSSENTIAL Accessibility service. The belief is that organizations that feature the 
app on their websites are committed to making it easier for people with 
disabilities to access information online, and do not have to update their 
website. Unfortunately, the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (enforcer of the 
AODA) appear to accept this claim. So, if you use a screen reader and have 
difficulties, it is not their problem.

Kare, I believe you have a Human Rights issue and not an AODA WCAG-AA compliance 


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Leicester [mailto:howard_leicester@btconnect.com]
Sent: August 24, 2016 02:54 PM
To: 'Karen Lewellen'; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL'
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

Hi Kare,

I know I got in trouble last time - for no reason!.

But I think most may be wondering the point of your key question!

I didn't understand it, but my previous email had an answer on all things (from 
NHS England).
So question to you is:
What's the statement and issue proving problems, and which country do you think 
it's raising a problem?

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
Sent: 24 August 2016 18:42
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

Hi there,
The technical baseline clause is a part of wacg, or was, with the aoda 
incorporating wacg 2.0 into its owns standards.  Interestingly enough the Ontario 
Human Rights Code has an even tighter mandate.  My understanding from previous 
discussions is that if a site is for the public, like a store, a company cannot 
tell those experiencing disabilities what they can use. i.e. our site works with 
jaws so...

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:

> Karen,
> WCAG 2, as a technical standard, cannot mandate human rights legal requirements.
> It is the laws in counties that point to and require the usage of particular 
> standards.
> The requirement to 'not mandate specific assistive technologies' for use by 
> users with disabilities, would be covered by the human or disability rights laws 
> in Ontario. I am sorry I am not familiar enough with the AODA, it is possible 
> that such a clause exists.
> It seems clear to me that organizations cannot mandate what you must use. But I 
> do not know if that is a provision of your laws. They certainly should be 
> clearly identifying what AT they do support in their Accessibility Statements. 
> And, they cannot claim conformance to WCAG 2 if they do not have some sort of 
> identified accessibility support.
> ????Here is the definition of Accessibility Supported from the WCAG 2 standard:
> " Accessibility Supported
> Using a technology in a way that is accessibility supported means that it works 
> with assistive technologies (AT) and the accessibility features of operating 
> systems, browsers, and other user agents. Technology features can only be relied 
> upon to conform to WCAG 2.0 success criteria if they are used in a way that is 
> "accessibility supported". Technology features can be used in ways that are not 
> accessibility supported (do not work with assistive technologies, etc.) as long 
> as they are not relied upon to conform to any success criterion (i.e., the same 
> information or functionality is also available another way that is supported). "
> Also Conformance Claim number 4 from the WCAG 2 standard says:
> " 4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies: Only 
> accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy 
> the success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way 
> that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is 
> accessibility supported. (See Understanding accessibility support.)"
> Hopefully someone else who lknows more about AODA will chime in 'not mandate 
> specific assistive technologies' for use by users with disabilities, if it 
> exists in Ontarian law.
> * katie *
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
> Chair, W3C WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) Interest Group
> (@w3c_wai)
> JOIN US: Subscribe to the WAI IG list, send an email to 
> w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org with "subscribe" as the subject line.
> Personal: Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |
> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:19 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Technical baseline clause revisited?
> 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 Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:49:08 UTC