Re: [user-context] What are the use cases for exposing screen reader or magnifier version info?

I agree with Rich, but I also think we've yet to see a compelling case
for exposing AT make and model info.

While it's true that several ATs have been notorious for bugs associable
with particular versions, I'm not sure this historic fact points to a
requirement going forward.

Haven't these bugs been related to the AT performing its own HTML
parsing--at least from an IndieUI reachable perspective? If I'm not
wrong about that, I submit there is likely to be little, or at least
much less of this going forward.
I agree with Rich, but I also think we've yet to see a compelling case
for exposing AT make and model info.

While it's true that several ATs have been notorious for bugs associable
with particular versions, I'm not sure this historic fact points to a
requirement going forward.

Haven't these bugs been related to the AT performing its own HTML
parsing--at least from an IndieUI reachable perspective? If I'm not
wrong about that, I submit there is likely to be little, or at least
much less of this going forward. Not only is it a huge undertaking,
there's much better a11y support in today's browsers and parsing engines
obviating the need for this kind of solution.

In other words, I suspect the historic pressure relates to ATs that were
also serving as browsers, something that I submit is going away. Am I
wrong?

Janina

Richard Schwerdtfeger writes:
> 
> I am extremely worried about privacy issues around exposing the AT a person
> is using.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> 
> 
> 
> From:	Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
> To:	public-indie-ui@w3.org,
> Date:	12/06/2012 08:04 PM
> Subject:	Re: [user-context] What are the use cases for exposing screen
>             reader  or magnifier version info?
> 
> 
> 
> James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> > Assistive technology vendors are not beholden to W3C specifications (and
> > most AT vendors are notoriously uninvolved in the standardization
> process),
> > so exposing this information when it's absolutely necessary, (and only
> with
> > user content), is one attempt to reduce the unreliability of AT
> interfaces
> > on the Web.
> 
> At a Web accessibility conference last week, a content author mentioned
> this
> to me as a highly desired feature due to bugs and limitations (often
> version-specific) in various screen readers.
> 
> I am concerned however that the information is open to misuse: content
> authors
> may start designing for the "most popular" ATs instead of writing according
> to
> spec. They can also ascertain which ATs are "most popular" for their
> particular content by gathering data, which is not possible now, since the
> name/version of the AT are not revealed.
> 
> Thus I have decidedly mixed feelings about this proposal and, frankly, I'm
> not
> sure whether the practical benefits of being able to work around certain
> bugs/differences outweigh the opportunity to "design for the UA and AT
> implementation" instead of designing to standards.
> 
> 



-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 20:58:32 UTC