W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:40:50 -0400
Message-Id: <562ADAAC-A846-4C69-8325-A6E60248E306@umd.edu>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 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>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Apr 24, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> My point was essentially: Let’s not worry about non-web contexts for the new SCs.

Agree
>  
> If the “mechanism” language is off-putting to people implementing web-content (our focus), then don’t use it.

Hmmm.   If it is the right language - we should not shirk from it.   if it is not - or there is better language then we should use the better language.   But we need to create good solid SC.

>  
> If an SC might not be applicable outside of web-content, then note that for future work but it should not impact WCAG 2.1.

Agree.  Note it offline — not in our official doc.
>  
> That means not worrying about non-web contexts for the text-adaptation SC, so no need for “if the technology supports it”.

Oh you miss the meaning of   “if technology supports it”.   For example,   if PDF supports it.     or  IF SVG supports it. 
>  
> Unless there is a “major web technology” where it couldn’t apply? So far we’ve had HTML/CSS/JS/SVG & PDF (where it can apply now). I don’t think it would be an issue for word-processing apps either, if they were included.

HTML 5 and javascript have really changed the game and Flash and Silverlight have fallen back as a result.    Can we say though that they are no longer major web technologies?   I would like to think that but I still run across them.     I live in HTML 5 land so I really don’t know about the other technologies.    I would have to ask our other colleagues in the field what they see being used by developers.      Not what we THINK they should use - but what is actually being used.

Those out there consulting and evaluating — are HTML/CSS/JS/SVG & PDF   the only technologies being use to create websites these days?    Also, Is EPUB  directly viewable from browsers  (current or future)?

>  
> Cheers,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
>  
>  
> From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
> 
>  
> Good post 
> I think I agree with your point about keeping focus on web content.    If I understand it. 
> but I think we should stick to it even a bit more than you do. 
>  
> see below
>  
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>  
>  
>  
>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> 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.
>  
> Yes.  But we must use this only when we feel that the Mechanism is reasonable 
>  
>>  
>> However, I think the basic principle of whether these are scoped to “web content” or aiming for a wider reach is still there.
>  
>  
> The name of the Guidelines is  “WEB CONTENT Accessibility Guidelines.”   If they can be more broadly used that is fine — but we do not have the mandate or nor charge to write guidelines for other things.  I think we should stick to Web Content.
>  
> 
> 
>>  
>> If the mechanism language is included that is off-putting to anyone working with web content.
>  
> I think I agree with where you are going — but this is and IF-THEN sentence but there is no THEN so I don’t know exactly where you were going with it.
>  
> 
> 
>>  
>> 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?
>>  
>  
> I agree  we should focus on Web Content.
>  
> I don’t think we should be commenting on application outside of Web Content.   Yes that is what the WCAG2ICT report did  — but that was led by a special task force that included people from outside of the web world as well.   Revising WCAG2ICT should involve some external input — and I suggest we stick to web content and not open up non-web content.  That is more work hours than you can imagine and we are having trouble advancing what we have in Web content.
>  
>  
>  
> So I agree — stick to web content
> I don’t think we should be making judgements outside of web content 
>  
>  
>  
> G 
>  
> 
> 
>> Kind regards,
>>  
>> -Alastair
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 13:41:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:35 UTC