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

(unknown charset) RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: (unknown charset) Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: (unknown charset) ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
cc: (unknown charset) Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1608242355120.7850@server2.shellworld.net>
Hi Alan,
Finally a moment to address your question.
Speaking only for myself, I can think of many many reasons why such a list 
is problematical.
No matter how well intended, requiring a combination of tools  to my mind 
does the following.
1, you are absolutely guaranteed to discriminate against someone because 
you suggest adaptive tools are interchangeable.  In many cases such tools 
are extensions of a persons hands, eyes, ears, feet, and brains.
In general you do not require the public to use a different set of hands or 
eyes or a different brain when visiting one business than another...you 
should not do this with websites either.
second, you support the wrong idea that everyone who might share a label 
are  exactly the same.  You meet one person with a learning disability, or 
a dexterity issue or sight loss and you have met them all.
further you overlook the possibility that a person may experience a 
combination of conditions, may require a combination of tools.
An example, there is, in my opinion, an absolutely reprehensible  product 
called essential accessibility.  This product claims that if a company 
installs it, "anyone with a disability," can use the site with the company 
not needing  to make any changes whatsoever...you automatically serve all 
people with disabilities at once.
My favorite example from their how to guide is the requirement of someone 
to hover a mouse point over an area  to have that area  read aloud...I am 
not kidding.   I know of three Canadian companies who installed this thing 
and never looked at access again because they believe that there is no 
distinction between those branded as disabled.
  third, you limit the 
flexibility of the tools themselves, especially 
open source tools that may be more easily obtained, but never find their 
way into t he testing process.  Not to mention, if a company ceases to 
exist, for example g. w. micro who makes window eyes is gone, you may be 
requiring tools that cannot be obtained.
fourth, you encourage stereotyping, a company may download a demo, pretend 
to be blind for 30 minutes, and never check their site again...for years. 
You diminish what is a life experience down to something that can be faked 
by a  person and this is frankly unacceptable.
A long time ago someone posted a link to a blog entry where the author 
points  out an important truth.  Frankly the nature of my body is no one's 
business but my own.  I can visit a store in stilettos, or sneakers, and 
still visit that store.  If you are substituting business functions on 
your site, the same must apply.
Simple example presently happening with  google mail.
Many individuals still prefer using their basic html interface with their 
adaptive tools. However a few days ago the ability to move between new and 
older  groups of mails vanished entirely, with the count presently reading 
like this.
messages 1-50 of 0...with no way to reach message 51.
People are panicking  because a basic keyboard function is missing and if 
they are like myself, I have 15 thousand emails in my gmail account, I 
fear the loss of years worth of my work..all because someone forgot that 
everything needs to work from the keyboard.
Such is why when asked I explain to others that website building should be 
much like road construction.

if a road is built well then any car 
should travel on it.  You can certainly add fancy painting to the 
highway, and plants and the like, but the road still works.
Additionally, there is space there for all driving abilities.
    creating a list of adaptive tool combinations removes the human 
from allowing a person to enhance their life as they desire  into you 
cannot be a proper person with this disability unless you use what I say.
Finally, the concept of adaptive tools are still too far outside of 
popular culture and exposure for many to even expect them to exist, let 
alone understand them.
In the case of the company I am fighting their policy is based on 
feasibility,  meaning if a person does not think a talking  computer is 
possible,  they can refuse to accommodate...which is of course 
unreasonable...and is presently happening.
I personally prefer choosing adaptive technology that will not do me 
physical harm, and some tools used by others with whom I may share a label 
besides human will do that to me.
By the numbers, most people experiencing blindness no longer read braille. 
Does that mean the less than 10% minority should not find Braille displays 
work?  Of course not, no more than that 90% majority should lose keyboard 
function.  The more you try to define how a person accommodates their 
individual experience, the less inclusive or human you become.
  Just my take,

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, ALAN SMITH wrote:

> My challenge would be that if a website works with only one set of or a couple sets of browser/screen reader combinations does it not meet the wording of “. it [the website] works with assistive technologies (AT) and the accessibility features of operating systems, browsers, and other user agents." 
> This statement does not say all of each or all of any.
> Am I getting too literal I’m my interpretation of it.
> Companies cannot be expected to support every and all combinations of all of the items in the statement.
> Therefore, if they have a set that they know works through their own testing or validation from a 3rd party and meets the guidelines with that set, then why cannot they state which ones they support and use to have their website compliant?
> Alan
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> From: Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 16:02:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 31 August 2016 16:02:09 UTC