Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

Thanks for the clarification Gregg. :-)

JF

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:41 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
> Gregg wrote:
> > the AUTHOR knows that all users already have it (it is in all browsers)
> All browsers? That's a mighty high bar to meet
>
>
> Agree.  I was going to go back and qualify that and I forgot.
>
> what we worked with in WCAG was
>
> Available in most of the major free (FF, IE, Saf, Chrome, etc)  and esp
> the default  (IE Saf) browsers
>
> the default were particularly important since there are many places where
> people are only allowed to use the default browsers
>
> I'm worried that this is making assumptions not based on evidence,
>
>
> we based our analysis on real data on what the browsers supported
>
> "A mechanism exists" is indeed a very powerful blanket statement, but it
> is also a double-edged sword, and I would suggest we need to tread very
> carefully here.
>
>
> Agree
>
>
>
> g
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:41 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>
> Gregg wrote:
>
> > the AUTHOR knows that all users already have it (it is in all browsers)
>
> All browsers? That's a mighty high bar to meet Gregg - I wonder aloud how
> many readers of this thread regularly test in Opera? How about the Yandex
> browser? Vivaldi? (and those are all based on the Blink web engine[1])
> What about Avant[2]? SeaMonkey[3]? qutebrowser[4]? Others?
>
> I'm worried that this is making assumptions not based on evidence, and is
> hardly a repeatable, testable state. And as sad as it is to say aloud, we
> cannot be expecting web authors to be anticipating every individual
> user-configuration and setting, and I additionally think we should not be
> asking authors to create widgets and other user-agent tools to address
> browser short-comings. I mean, it's great that those needs are being met in
> the marketplace by extensions and plugins (this thread mentions Stylish
> frequently), but writing a SC dependent on the quirks of a browser plugin
> feels very wrong to me (in very much the same way as suggesting writing
> WCAG 2.0 to reflect JAWs of 2006 was not a good idea then either).
>
> "A mechanism exists" is indeed a very powerful blanket statement, but it
> is also a double-edged sword, and I would suggest we need to tread very
> carefully here.
>
> Alastair wrote:
>
> > However, for these adaptation SCs the onus is on the user to provide
> the mechanism, and for the author not to disrupt their use of it.
>
> +1, but that contradicts what Gregg is suggesting (not that I am in
> agreement with Gregg's assertion here). I agree Alastair, I suspect that
> part of the problem is that we are also moving towards a series of SC that
> say what the author must NOT do (e.g. do NOT mess with the end-user's
> ability to enlarge text), as opposed to what they must do (provide a widget
> that allows for magnification of text up-to 400%). I think we need to be
> crystal clear on that.
>
> JF
>
>
> [1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(web_engine)]
> [2 - http://www.avantbrowser.com/]
> [3 - http://www.seamonkey-project.org/]
> [4 - http://www.qutebrowser.org/]
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> ???
>>
>> There are not — and should not be - any requirements on the user in any
>> WCAG.   These are guidelines for authors.
>>
>>
>> A “mechanism is available” means that the AUTHOR knows that all users
>> already have it (it is in all browsers ) or the author has to provide it.
>>
>> If there are new SC being proposed that say “ the user must provide a
>> mechanism”  (in any words) then — you are right - that is a problem and
>> needs to be fixed.
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gregg wrote:
>> > “Mechanism is available” is a very powerful and forward looking approach
>>
>> Yes, and to be clear I wasn’t being critical of its use in WCAG 2.0. In
>> those cases the onus was (and mostly still is) on the author to provide the
>> mechanism.
>>
>> However, for these adaptation SCs the onus is on the user to provide the
>> mechanism, and for the author not to disrupt their use of it. In that way
>> it is similar to 2.1.1 Keyboard. The user brings the keyboard, the site
>> should enable that usage by using proper HTML inputs/links/buttons, not
>> using dodgy event handling etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion