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

Re: Can anyone not live with this sentence as the Adapting Text SC's intro? (was Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC has support in 2 technologies?)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:53:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpveVwPXJUd7DeLUmzRsju9bsqq=Hjj7RHZZ8F5VBQZByug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, 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>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg,

Thank you very much for the advice.

I've asked on the Oracle comment if there are any technologies beyond
the HTML stack and PDF that they are concerned about.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/222#issuecomment-297448896

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 4/26/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
> I don’t know the answer to your question.
>
> As I mentioned in a provious post —  I do everything in HTML 5 and JS these
> days.
>
> But I don’t judge the web by what I do.
>
> I know that Flash is deprecated by Apple iOS and someone mentioned that one
> browser was blocking it.
>
> I didn’t know that JAVA was in web content (it is used on servers and
> desktops but we are only talking about web content - and I don’t know about
> its use there).
>
> The questions are —
> what technologies are being used on new and updated web pages.
> (lets assume old pages won’t be changed by WCAG 2.1 so no reason to take
> them into account - unless updated)
> will new web technologies in future all use style sheets
> remember that there is a huge focus / effort on intelligent agent and verbal
> interfaces going forward.
>
> I don’t know the answer to either.
>
> Who might know?
>
> people who consult on web page design across many vendors will know if there
> are ANY people / companies developing pages using anything besides HTML and
> PDF.
> Note — what MOST people do is not relevant.  If there are SOME that use
> other technologies we either have to cover those technologies — or we are
> effectively barring them from using those technologies or barring them from
> even being able to conform.
> Companies working on new web technologies and AIs and verbal interfaces can
> comment better on the future.
>
>
> Wish I knew the answers — but I don’t.   Do others?  (again - don’t reply
> with MOST — we need to know if ANY — for the reasons above)
>
>
> thx
>
> g
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gregg,
>>
>> By "sufficient techniques for meeting it with all the different
>> technologies" do you mean we must have not only HTML and PDF
>> techniques but also:
>>
>> * Java techniques
>> * Silverlight techniques
>> * Flash techniques
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> On 4/26/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the question is premature until we have
>>> created sufficient techniques for meeting it with all the different
>>> technologies
>>> have proven to ourselves that the technologies will work across all page
>>> types.
>>>
>>> if these are both done -  and the words don’t have to be revised after or
>>> as
>>> part of doing them — then yes.   But without that info - I don’t know
>>> the
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Laura Carlson
>>>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gregg and everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask this question again in a slightly different manner:
>>>>
>>>> Are you or anyone else not able to live with the following for the
>>>> Adapting Text SC's intro sentence?
>>>>
>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can
>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or
>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>>>>
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>> Laura
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/24/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite a few are listed on the options page [1] for instance, the last
>>>>> one at AA  is Option L:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can
>>>>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or
>>>>> functionality." (Then the bullet list).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't live with that particular one, Is there any proposal on
>>>>> that page, that doesn't have the "technology being used" language that
>>>>> you could live with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>> Laura
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you include the current wording for the SC you are asking about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Laura Carlson
>>>>>>> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you
>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>> without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> SC will fail general applicability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>>>>>>>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J
>>>>>>>>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> gives
>>>>>>>>> an author power to simply skip over an SC just because they use a
>>>>>>>>> technology with poor accessibility support.  Any exceptions should
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> clear restrictions and backup accessibility support (as does
>>>>>>>>> "Images
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Text", for example).  For WCAG 2.1, with or without the language
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> probably not the question.  Rather, what is the compromising
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> now until we get to Silver?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which
>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>> technologies are "major", but in order to talk about
>>>>>>>>> future-proofing
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> need to discuss responsibility.  And currently, the responsibility
>>>>>>>>> chain
>>>>>>>>> has a very weak link from author to user that is only going to get
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> important to strengthen as we talk about adaptation,
>>>>>>>>> linearization,
>>>>>>>>> personalization, and other needs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web
>>>>>>>>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> WCAG
>>>>>>>>> buck stops there obviously in its current form.  The problem is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, trying to remain
>>>>>>>>> technology-agnostic would result in the same core issue: no
>>>>>>>>> responsibility
>>>>>>>>> is formally placed on web technology developers (at least not
>>>>>>>>> outside
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> W3C).  If we really want to produce guidelines which are both
>>>>>>>>> independent
>>>>>>>>> of current technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> have to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with
>>>>>>>>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or
>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility
>>>>>>>>> Guidelines).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM
>>>>>>>>> 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>;
>>>>>>>>> Repsher,
>>>>>>>>> Stephen J <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>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> SC
>>>>>>>>> has support in 2 technologies?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Laura L. Carlson
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 15:54:15 UTC

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