Re: Touch with Assistive Technology

> So what if I make an AUDIO ONLY version meant to be used with a browser
that has no display or keyboard.

I'm hoping the language covers this scenario sufficiently.. Firstly, It is
a finite list.

1. automatically customized for various devices 2. browsers, 3.
orientation, or 4. screen sizes.

I don't know of any way currently to target
​a sound file to a specific user agent that reads an http address. Sound
files are downloaded. In 20 years in this field I've never seen an "AUDIO
ONLY version" of a website. Maybe it will happen but not likely at an HTTP
address.

Also there is a further safeguard in this highly speculative example:


​> ​
 if a user actively chooses a setting on the page that optimizes or
personalizes the state of the page for accessibility reasons, this new
state does not necessarily need to conform, because the conforming version
can be reached by undoing the setting.

​The author only needs to provide the audio version as a setting that
personalizes, then there is no obligation.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
wrote:

> this is interesting.
>
> and covers lots of issues.
>
> However — you say Each of these variations
>
> So what if I make an AUDIO ONLY version meant to be used with a browser
> that has no display or keyboard  (e.g. built entirely into an earpiece -
> with an AI)  (or IA intelligent agent)
>
> Does that mean that a site that has such an interface can never conform?
>
> Why do I need to make that version accessible when a person who can’t use
> that type of device — would not HAVE that kind of device
> and would access the site using a device that they can use?
>
> g
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:26 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Touch with Assistive Technology is one of the SCs I've been a strong
> proponent of from the beginning and I'm heavily invested in the wording. As
> the SC manager of it I've been reviewing the comments, and unfortunately, I
> don't think we can address the comments adequately with word smithing. It's
> clear there is a real need to ensure functionality works when screen
> readers on mobile are running. John avila mentioned sliders, combo boxes,
> and menus and I found infinite scroll pages sometimes cannot be operated
> with a 3 finger swipe down on VO.
>
> My first thought was to make a short list of common functions that should
> work AT. Detlev is rightly concerned that its arbitrary, can leave
> important gaps etc.
>
> On further consideration, I think the requirement that Mobile AT works
> with sites targeted to mobile is already covered in WCAG, but not
> explicitly. I had filed a bug about a year ago after an extensive dialogue
> with many stakeholders including Patrick and previous chairs of WCAG2 etc.
> It proposes an editorial amendment to the conformance requirements ensuring
> that it is understood that conformance requires that author created views
> targeted at a specific device need to conform on that device.
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197  The editorial fix has good
> consensus and momentum, and just needs to be acted on.
>
> This will ensure that authors understand that Accessibility support
> applies to all device specific views of a site created by an author. Here's
> the amendment language for the conformance section:
>
> ====
> "The full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically
> customized for various devices, browsers, orientation, or screen sizes.
> Each of these variations (or their respective conforming alternate
> versions) needs to conform in order for the entire page to conform.
> However, if a user actively chooses a setting on the page that optimizes or
> personalizes the state of the page for accessibility reasons, this new
> state does not necessarily need to conform, because the conforming version
> can be reached by undoing the setting."
> ===
>
> The win is that WCAG 2 will be clearer, and that the SCs are understood to
> apply to device specific views that are created by the author.
>
> It also address concerns that the current SC requires too many AT
> combinations. (Android, iOS, Kindle, Windows Narrator etc.).
>
> Under WCAG 2, only one stack needs to work for each device specific view
> created by the author. So only one device needs to be supported. Easier to
> manage in a dot release.
>
> If we are in unity with this direction, we can propose together this
> amendment, using the group evaluation of this SC as it's platform. Then
> retire this SC.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>