W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Assistive Technology Detection

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:27:31 -0600
To: accessys@smart.net
Cc: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OF868795E4.8482573E-ON86258224.0052DBB7-86258224.0054ED7F@notes.na.collabserv.com>
come on Bob, no one, including me, is arguing for a Lexus to be required 
to drive down an ADA compliant highway.
but to use a highway, you do have to have a car that can go the minimum 
speed, 45 mph I think, and meet all the safety standards, right? 

I simply said that ADA technical standards cover both the larger Van 
Accessible parking spot - and - also cover what is a smaller regular 
accessible parking spot.  The ADA doesn't require the parking lot owner to 
provide/pay for the Van, or the car, to use the accessible parking spot. 
The specs were developed to meet the common sizes (but not 100%) of 
accessible vans, If you have an accessible van the size of a small motor 
home, it may not fit.  If the user needs or wants an accessible van, it is 
not the parking lot owners responsibility to provide the van.  The parking 
lot owner only has to provide a certain number of the two different sized 
parking spaces in their parking lot. 

I provided this analogy as an example of claiming technical compliance to 
WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria.  If the web site owner provides a website that 
is supported by ARIA supported assistive technologies, then it meets the 
technical standard. 

If you disagree with the analogy as an example, then we can agree to 
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility 
Conformance Report VPAT« at  able.ibm.com/request
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility

From:   accessys@smart.net
To:     Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
Cc:     Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" 
Date:   01/26/2018 01:11 PM
Subject:        Re: Assistive Technology Detection

and phill's argument falls apart at this point.

eg   we have a highway and anyone with a Lexus can drive on it.  so it is 
open to anyone just go buy a Lexus.


On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Mark Weiler wrote:

> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
> To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Assistive Technology Detection
> Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:42:47 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> My reading of the WCAG 2.0's Understanding document is the working group 
interprets the issue of affordability within the requirement of 
'accessibility supported'. To quote:┬ 
> "This topic raises the question of how many or which assistive 
technologies must support a Web technology in order for that Web 
technology to be considered "accessibility supported".. ..This is a 
complex topic and one that varies both by environment and by language. 
There is a need for an external and international dialogue on this topic. 
Some notes to help in understanding and exploring this topic are...
> Currently assistive technology that is affordable by the general public 
is often very poor... In many cases, the cost of assistive technologies is 
too high for users who need it... [emphasis added]
> The Working Group, therefore, limited itself to defining what 
constituted support and defers the judgment of how much, how many, or 
which AT must support a technology to the community and to entities closer 
to each situation that set requirements for an organization, purchase, 
community, etc.
> The Working Group encourages more discussion of this topic in the 
general forum of society since this lack of generally available yet robust 
assistive technologies is a problem that affects users, technology 
developers and authors negatively."
>    On Friday, January 26, 2018 12:11 PM, Phill Jenkins 
<pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> | . . . Ibelieve part 2.d addresses Bob's point about poverty levels. . 
> hmm, not the way Iinterpret Bob's comments over the years. ┬ For 
example, quoting 2.dTheuser agent(s) that support the technology are 
accessibility supported andare available for download or purchase in a way 
>   - does not cost a person with a disabilityany more than a person 
without a disability┬ and
>   - is as easy to find and obtain for a personwith a disability as it is 
for a person without disabilities.
> doesnot address "afordability", but does address equal costs andequal 
availability. ┬ If a $900 laptop, with the latest operating system,browser 
and AT (such as free NVDA) is equally the same costs and equallyavailable 
in the English language in the neighboor store ┬ - then itis understood to 
be "accessibility supported". ┬ 
> Bob, correct meif I'm wrong, but Bob is talking about how some users 
with disabilitiescan't afford the $900 lapttop, so they can't afford to 
upgrade to the latestARIA supported technologies for example. ┬ The 
solution is the samecost and same availability to both the user with a 
disability and the personwithout disabilities. ┬ And while it is equally 
expensive to both aswell, it is equally compliant (or can be) to standards 
and equally usableto both . ┬ 
> WCAG standardsdo not and should not address affordability in my opinion. 
┬ Othermechanism do and should address affordability. ┬ And, for 
example,neither does or should ADA standards cover the affordability ofan 
accessible van in defining the number of van accessible parking spotsthere 
needs to be in a parking lot, it does not cover the affordabilitywhen 
considering the width and spacing of a van accessible parking spot.┬ And 
there are considerations in the standards that are "determined"by the AT 
it self, such as the Van Accessible specs are wider, etc. thanregular car 
accessible spots. ┬  Similar to how now ARIA is supportedby platforms and 
assistive technology - so it can be considered in theclaim that it is 
accessibility supported.
> ┬ ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
> Check out the newsystem for requesting an IBM product Accessibility 
Conformance Report VPAT®at  able.ibm.com/request
> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
> SeniorEngineer & Accessibility Executive
> IBM Research Accessibility
> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
> From:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
> To:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ PhillJenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> Cc:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, 
> Date:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ 01/26/201802:52 AM
> Subject:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ Re:Assistive Technology Detection
> Phil, (Bob)
> My reading of the WCAG2.0 documents is that "conformance claims" can 
involve statingweb technologies relied upon but these "conformance claims" 
areoptional. ┬ Conformance itself, however, has 5 required parts, withpart 
4 requiring web content to only rely on accessibly supported contentto 
meet the success criteria ("Only accessibility-supportedways of using 
technologiesare reliedupon to satisfythe success criteria.") ┬ 
>> From the referencedocument,it seem that AT's and user agents determine 
whether something is accessibilitysupported or not: "a Web content 
technology is 'accessibility supported'when users' assistive technologies 
will work with the Web technologiesAND when the accessibility features of 
mainstream technologies willwork with the technology" (caps and emphasis 
in the original).
> The technicaldefinition of accessibility-supportedhas two parts and I 
believe part 2.d addresses Bob's point about povertylevels, as do other 
parts in the reference document.
> On Thursday, January25, 2018 10:42 PM, Phill Jenkins 
<pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> | howcan a site or app know
> | what web content technologies to serve up
> | that are accessibly supported
> | without knowing the user agents and AT the user is using? ┬ 
> My understanding is that for a site or app to claim conformance, the 
claimanthas to know or the claim has to state which accessibility 
supported technologieswere relied upon in the conformance testing, not in 
what the user is usingafter the conformance testing is done. ┬ Of course 
what users actuallyuse significantly influences what are the definitive 
list of accessibilitysupported technologies. ┬ There is no requirement to 
"serve upthat technology" to claim conformance.
> For example, if the operating system and browser platform support 
highcontrast technology, the claim can be made that the site or app 
conforms(or still conforms) with all the WCAG Success Criteria when the 
user isrelying on those accessibility supported features in the operating 
systemand browser platform. ┬ The site or app conformance would fail if 
the1.3.1 Info and relationship success criteria fails because some 
labelsor headings "disappeared" when turning on the high contrast 
accessibilityfeatures supported in the OS & Browser.
> ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
> IBM Research Accessibility
> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
> From: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
> To: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, 
> Date: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ 01/25/201806:52 PM
> Subject: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ Re:Assistive Technology Detection
> Related to AT detection is how can a site or app know what web 
contenttechnologies to serve up that are accessibly supported without 
knowingthe user agents and AT the user is using? ┬ 
> Accessibility supported is a requirementfor conformance. ┬  
Andresearchfindingsshow differences inhow browsers and ATs are supporting 
web content technologies.
> On Thursday, January 25, 2018 7:08 PM, David Woolley 
> The dangers I see are:
> 1) this will reinforce the idea that the only disabled people are those
> that use JAWs.
> 2) it will probably have a similar effect to early mobile web sites,
> which tended to be cleaner, and easier to use that the main web site.
> That may mean that the main web site gets more difficult to use, and you
> won't be able to do the equivalent of using wap instead of www.
> On 25/01/18 19:18, accessys@smart.netwrote:
>> counter to concept of accessibility, one should not need to identify
>> and personally I would be ,opposed to it.
Received on Monday, 29 January 2018 15:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 January 2018 15:30:56 UTC