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

RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:30:18 -0400
Message-ID: <57bed6cf.091d810a.3f290.9c45@mx.google.com>
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc: 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I appreciate your response and feedback,

My goal in the use of the word “all” was to help with a clarification of what a company can do and can say that they do support since it is clear that they cannot support “all”. Companies can only be expected to support “some” and hopefully it is the most commonly used systems and ATs.

Just a side not: When www.healthcare.gov first came out and was in all the news in the USA, I thought I would look at their site. It worked fairly well with PCs, JAWS and NVDA. However, it had extremely poor functionality on iPADS with Safari and VoiceOver. In fact, it did not even work well without AT on that platform. So, can we assume that it was not compliant with Section 508 because it was not supported on iPADs? 

It seems my question to you did meet its goal in that what you wrote supports the notion that a company “CAN” state which OSes and ATs they use and have tested their webpages on.

While companies cannot mandate what you can and cannot use, they can specify which system and ATs they do support or have validated their websites on.


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Phill Jenkins

(image/png attachment: 6E970508A21E4DF9A617B54140365D5C.png)

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:30:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:30:54 UTC