Re: User Contexts: identifying assistive technologies

comments inline:

> Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> There are sites that
>> will turn off access features for performance reason if they are able.
>
> Presumably they could turn them off by default and enable them only if the
> user's context profile indicates a requirement for captions, descriptions or
> anything else indicative of access needs. This can happen entirely in the
> absence of any key in the profile that explicitly discloses assistive
> technologies.
>
> Note that, as previously stated, I have substantial concerns about the misuse
> of an assistive-technology-identifying property, but the particular misuse
> that you identified above unfortunately could apply as an argument against
> most of User Contexts, not just against this specific capability.

If User Contexts *only* had applicability to "disabled" people (whatever 
that means) then this would be a valid argument but they don't.  An 
indication that a user requires textForVisual could be because they are 
in a noisy environment rather than because they are deaf.  A request for 
auditoryForVisual could be because they are driving, and so on.  The 
consequence is that that adaptations to those preferences can improve 
the experience for many more people - as we all know is the case with 
many "accessibiliy" adaptations.  But we lose the capability to 
associate the adaptation *only* with those specific human 
characteristics, which is a good thing (provided we can still deliver 
appropriate adaptations, which we can).

> User-agent strings are exactly the analogy that I had in mind here, which I
> think places me in full agreement with Raman on the point. On the other hand,
> I don't think the privacy issues are any different from those associated with
> other aspects of User Contexts, which implies that I'm in a slight
> disagreement with Andy (his reasons, not his conclusion). Interoperability

On a lighter note - I'm not sure I know what my reasons are :-). I might 
be avoiding finishing my decorating.

> considerations and standards-conformance are the decisive issues for me.

They *must* be but new "required" functionalities do come along.

> As an aside, the conformance section of WCAG 2.0 is clear: a Web page (as
> defined in the spec) conforms if "a conforming alternate version is provided".
> Thus it's permissible so far as WCAG is concerned to require users to disclose
> a need for accessibility in order for it to be provided, and to serve a highly
> inaccessible version by default.

There is an anecdote a disabled comedian here tells (Liz Carr for those 
who know of her) - she is not tall enough to reach the counters in our 
post offices.  Apparently she went in a post office once and asked that 
they provide some way she could reach the counter (such as something she 
could stand on).  The response she got was "well we meet the disability 
guidelines!".

As to WCAG - being of English cultural habits I'm reluctant when in 
someone's house to criticise their furniture but maybe its too tall for 
me to reach to sit on without a leg-up (which is not the same as saying 
its not useful to those who can sit on it).  OK, that's just a bit of 
fun - but maybe WCAG is not the end of that story.

andy

andy
andyheath@axelrod.plus.com
-- 
__________________
Andy Heath
http://axelafa.com

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 07:47:16 UTC