- From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:08:18 +0000
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- CC: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.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>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] > If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used" language on all of > our SCs? [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at all. I think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used to meet WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies in use today, I think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier, HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to consider at the moment. Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in mind, and WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do agree with Gregg that major user interface revolutions may well be coming, but they need to be based on implementation technologies that adequately support accessibility. ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 14:09:00 UTC