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: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:01:49 +0000
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, 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>
Message-ID: <BN6PR07MB345719356E54D04110678D7EAB1F0@BN6PR07MB3457.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>


> -----Original Message-----
>
> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but  in the exploration of
> specific SC.   For the most part - that has not been necessary.
>
> And discussion of specific SC are underway now.
>
> But if you have a blanket  “we will never use this”  then you might block some
> SC(s) from being able to get in at all.
>
> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by case basis.     It is
> not needed by most all but may be needed by one or another.    So lets see.
[Jason] One of the issues in the current discussion which isn't addressed by the definition of "accessibility supported" in WCAG, is that certain accessibility-related features may not be supported at all in some environments (e.g., on mobile devices, as in Adapting Text and Resize Content, if I understand the issue correctly). Suppose that the author is using technologies in an accessibility supported way; there are freely and readily available user agents which support this use of the technology, and it's compatible with accessibility features and with AT. However, some of the accessibility features are only available on user agents under certain operating systems, and these happen to exclude mobile environments entirely.
So, if the author depends on the availability of these features, then they're accessible to users, but the users are deprived of a choice of hardware with which to take advantage of them.
I think the right thing to say is that the mobile user agents need to catch up, assuming that adding the required features would be feasible and practically useful.
If we really think certain requirements are best met on the user agent side, then we should at least document and collect these requirements. By doing so, we can make a stronger argument in developing Silver that these issues have to be resolved at the UA level. I think "it's a user agent requirement and we're deferring it for consideration in the Silver process" is a valid decision to take in the WCAG 2.1 process.


________________________________

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 21:02:29 UTC

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