(unknown charset) Re: Assistive Technology Detection

agree

Bob


On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Phill Jenkins wrote:

> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:26:14 -0600
> From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> To: accessys@smart.net
> Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Assistive Technology Detection
> 
> but Bob,
> there are so many things we do agree on though, like
> 1. Web applications should be developed to accommodate assistive
> technology without the web application knowing if the user is using
> assistive
> technology.
> 2. Web application should comply with WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA Success
> Criteria.
> 3. Internet access should be affordable to everyone.
> 4. Assistive Technology should be affordable to everyone.
> ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
> Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
> Conformance Report VPAT® at  able.ibm.com/request
> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
> IBM Research Accessibility
> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
> ibm.com/able
> facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
> twitter.com/IBMAccess
> ageandability.com
>
>
>
> From:   accessys@smart.net
> To:     Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> Cc:     Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"
> <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Date:   01/29/2018 09:52 AM
> Subject:        Re: Assistive Technology Detection
>
>
>
>
> we have disagreed (agreeably) about this for some years I doubt neither of
>
> us will change the others mind much.  parking is more like powering down
> the computer not using it.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Phill Jenkins wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:27:31 -0600
>> From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>> To: accessys@smart.net
>> Cc: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>,
>>     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Assistive Technology Detection
>>
>> 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
>> disagree.
>> ___________
>> Regards,
>> Phill Jenkins
>> Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
>> Conformance Report VPAT® at  able.ibm.com/request
>> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
>> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
>> IBM Research Accessibility
>> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:   accessys@smart.net
>> To:     Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>> Cc:     Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"
>> <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.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> 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:Â
>>> "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. Â For
>> example, quoting 2.dTheuser agent(s) that support the technology are
>> accessibility supported andare available for download or purchase in a
> way
>> that:
>>>   - 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. Â 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". Â
>>>
>>> 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. Â The
>> solution is the samecost and same availability to both the user with a
>> disability and the personwithout disabilities. Â And while it is equally
>> expensive to both aswell, it is equally compliant (or can be) to
> standards
>> and equally usableto both . Â
>>>
>>> WCAG standardsdo not and should not address affordability in my
> opinion.
>> Â Othermechanism do and should address affordability. Â 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. Â  Similar to how now ARIA is supportedby platforms
> and
>> assistive technology - so it can be considered in theclaim that it is
>> accessibility supported.
>>> Â ___________
>>> 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:Â  Â  Â  Â MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>>> To:Â  Â  Â  Â PhillJenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>>> Cc:Â  Â  Â  Â DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
>> "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>> Date:Â  Â  Â  Â 01/26/201802:52 AM
>>> Subject:Â  Â  Â  Â 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. Â 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.") Â
>>>
>>>> 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? Â
>>>
>>> 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. Â Of course
>> what users actuallyuse significantly influences what are the definitive
>> list of accessibilitysupported technologies. Â 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. Â 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: Â  Â  Â  Â MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>>> To: Â  Â  Â  Â DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
>> "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>> Date: Â  Â  Â  Â 01/25/201806:52 PM
>>> Subject: Â  Â  Â  Â 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? Â
>>>
>>> Accessibility supported is a requirementfor conformance. Â
>> Andresearchfindingsshow differences inhow browsers and ATs are
> supporting
>> web content technologies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 25, 2018 7:08 PM, David Woolley
>> <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>