RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

Phil,

If I understand your comments. If a company places a caveat that states the web site has been tested with x screen reader for CA, wouldn’t technically pass their regulation. The query is would it be a pass with exceptions?


Sean Murphy
Accessibility Software engineer
seanmmur@cisco.com
Tel: +61 2 8446 7751      Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
ST LEONARDS
2065
Australia
cisco.com
 Think before you print.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2016 10:15 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

My additional point to add on this thread is that there can be confusion in terminology at times, especially across legal terms and applicability.  For example, in order for the entity to comply with some provision of AODA, their web site or web app should conform to the 36 Success Criteria of WCAG 2.0 that are referenced in AODA.  e.g. conform to the technical standard means the web site passes the success criteria.  A company (or entity) complies with the law, a web site conforms to the standard.  The company can't say their web site conforms to the standard by requiring a certain assistive technology, because, as Katie quoted, the standard itself says: ". . . it [the website] works with assistive technologies (AT) and the accessibility features of operating systems, browsers, and other user agents."

In other words, the entity complies with AODA by claiming which web technologies (e.g. HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, etc.) they are relying upon, not which assistive technologies they are relying upon to pass the WCAG success criteria. The keyboard success criteria does not imply nor should it rely on any assistive technology, it explicitly says through a keyboard interface, which is typically part of the operating system platform and a physically attached keyboard, period.

2.1.1<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#keyboard-operation-keyboard-operable>Keyboard: All functionality<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/keyboard-operation-keyboard-operable.html#functiondef>of the content is operable through a keyboard interface<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/keyboard-operation-keyboard-operable.html#keybrd-interfacedef> without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)

A Keyboard interface is an operating system feature that is used by the browser, used by the AT, and used by other user agents.  The OS feature also provides the physical (or Bluetooth connected) keyboard device support to the human end user as well.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Senior Engineer & Business Development Executive
IBM Research - IBM Accessibility
ibm.com/able<http://www.ibm.com/able>
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility<http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>
twitter.com/IBMAccess<http://twitter.com/IBMAccess>
ageandability.com




From:        "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>
To:        "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net<mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net>>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Date:        08/24/2016 12:32 PM
Subject:        RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?
________________________________



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<mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org> with “subscribe” as the subject line.

Personal: Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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