Re: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies? from Alastair Campbell on 2017-04-24 (public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org from April 2017)

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:08:57 +0000
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, Stephen Repsher <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, "To Henry" <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A05F3C19-667C-42C8-B852-CA72E9192EDE@nomensa.com>

Gregg wrote:
> I agree that scoping it is not desirable, since it gives a pass to anyone that uses a technology that doesn’t support it.

Or we use the “mechanism is available” language so that technologies without the user-agent ability to override styles can pass if the author includes the mechanism.

However, I think the basic principle of whether these are scoped to “web content” or aiming for a wider reach is still there.

If the mechanism language is included that is off-putting to anyone working with web content.

I would prefer to push the accessibility of web content further (in the “web content” guidelines), and mark some SC is less or not-applicable to non-web contexts, which is presumably what the Web2ICT report did?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 08:09:35 UTC