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 16:20:57 -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.4.64.1608311547571.4634@server2.shellworld.net>
Hi Alan and  Phill,
Alan, I take it you mean this exchange.
Perhaps?  You can achieve the All, not by basing it on tools, but again by 
basking it on the floor.  The tools, their expansiveness or limitations, 
depend entirely on the individual.  All individuals  deserve a way in. 
When you start choosing the tools, you prevent the individual uniqueness.
You can instead  create the floor. first the basic concrete, then the 
floor if I add a chair or two, or a table etc.  Each edition may present 
varying experience, but there is still a floor.
Two different but equally fine illustrations from my own technical life.
Some time in the recent past the American Foundation for the Blind won a 
suit against the Social Security Administration requiring them to provide 
documents in accessible formats.
At first letters were sent, just the letters if one desired, on a disc 
one could open in a word processor.
Somewhere along the line, someone decided to do your one screen reader one 
operating system thing...adding a software program to the previously just 
the letters  ma'am disc.  And naturally making sure loads of people can no 
longer read their Social Security Administration letters at all.
So I have spent the better part of a year trying to get something that 
works without success because someone working for the SSA decides, hey I 
can do it, I  fit this label, end of discussion.  Instead of keeping the 
communication simple.
Imagine if a person fails to get their ssa communication and loses their 
benefits because someone tested in one screen reader and one operating 
system, but it is neither the screen reader or operating system of the 
individual getting the letter?
You will discriminate if you root your compliance in tools alone...there 
is no such thing as common in a world where  bodies work differently.  You 
cannot project the idea of the most common without also projecting the 
idea that a percentage of a group are enough alike for a common preference 
to be determined.  does this make sense?
My other illustration stems from how I can, because the administrator for 
the shell service I use, provides   most recent developer editions of low 
and  medium 
graphics browsers, manage in places others even in windows or something 
The shell is based in Ubuntu, and for example uses the latest edition of 
lynx, from April 2016.  I might find a script button,  on a website where 
I can do the following command
on said button, be presented with the option of submitting the content, 
move forward even though the button is java scripted, even sometimes if it 
is done well, even if the button would also need a mouse click.
It worked...for me.  it might not for many others who are in windows where 
the graphics are so tightly woven that only a mouse will do.
Phil referenced  places where video content exists, depending on the 
place, say a news organization, CBS  could be compliant by providing a 
transcript along with the video content.  I am actually finding more of 
options, for example a link on the Washington Post website telling me a 
story is suitable for screen readers.
I would much rather have that link say it is for low graphics  access 
instead, because many populations benefit from less junk.  still it is a 
Again, does this make sense?
Just my take of course,


On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, ALAN SMITH wrote:

> Phill,
> 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.
> Alan
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> From: Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 20:21:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 31 August 2016 20:21:30 UTC