Re: Touch with Assistive Technology

f
Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Apr 23, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Ø  Also — The WCAG 2.0 did not assume that author created views targeted at a specific device need to conform on that device
>  
> While you could make a claim based on one technology and one user agent -- It seems to go against the advice of the working group in regards to public content . The Understanding WCAG conformance document states “Content posted to the public Web may need to work with a broader range of user agents and assistive technologies, including older versions.”  So, yes, a claim could be made – but such a claim would provide limited value.

You can make a claim - but you can not make a conformance claim.   There is not conformance model that applies only to one technology and one user agent unless you are in an intranet where you can assure that that user agent is the one used by everyone who needs accessibility. 

Note that claims of “partial conformance” are claims of non-conformance. 

>  
> Ø   So this kind of changes the mantra that 2.1 doesnt change the 2.0 provisions…   
> My understanding was that we were making sure WCAG 2.1 was backwards compatible.  If WCAG 2.1 conformance required a stricter need for making a claim for each different version of a site it would still be backwards compatible with WCAG 2.0.

Correct.    

If 2.1 requires that you conform for each different view of the page then it would be stricter and would be backward compatible.   But it also makes it much harder and sounds like it eliminates conforming alternate versions —  which means no new technologies?  hmmm

>  
> In 2008 mobile sites were often separate and had links to desktop sites.  That is no longer the case. 

If there is ONLY a mobile version — then it would be the only version and would have to conform - no? 

> So if a mobile view is not accessible and the conformance claim was made for the desktop only – then in my opinion the claim must state that and making such a claim has limited use. 

I think maybe the company can make a claim on the desktop version - and not on the mobile version.   It is then up to regulators to decide if both need to be accessible.  I don’t think a desktop should be deemed inaccessible if there is also a mobile that is not.   I would think we should just let each one be evaluated — and leave it to others to require that they both need to be or not.     I think we should stick to being the ruler - and let other decide what measure is good enough — and what has to meet that measure. 

> Perhaps a non-normative note could be added encouraging people to describe the nature of the site in the claim and what is required to trigger that site and the list the supported for that claim.

All claims are non-normative.   There is no need to make a claim in order to conform.  So all info in the claim is optional as well. 

Note that many companies cannot make a claim of conformance.  Their lawyers will not allow them to.   So if you require a claim - you make an accessible site non-conforming just because they don’t claim it   This did not make sense to us in WCAG 2.0 so that is why claims are optional  Non-normative. 




>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 4:33 PM
> To: Jonathan Avila
> Cc: David MacDonald; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Touch with Assistive Technology
>  
>  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
>  
> careful
>  
> Changing the conformance model — changes ALL OF THE SC.  They were written depending on that conformance model. 
>  So this kind of changes the mantra that 2.1 doesnt change the 2.0 provisions…   
>  
>  
> Also — The WCAG 2.0 did not assume that author created views targeted at a specific device need to conform on that device.    We were more looking at it form the point of view that the content needed to be viewable in ONE manner.  Not all manners or forms.    In fact it is baked into the conformance (at least one version is accessible).    
>  
> Not all content can be accessible to all people on all platforms.  
> What if no screen reader exists for a device/platform? —  then no blind access.    
> What if no player with caption presentation exists on a device/platform?   no deaf access to media
> low vision users who need large print?  - no meaningful Web access on iPhone 4’s  for example (or any iPhone?)  [You can’t get one word across the screen in any Large Print for anyone with serious low vision]
>  
> We need to really think them through hard to understand their consequences and implications.  This is what makes this so hard. 
>  
> Don’t have a quick answer — but each time we propose something we have to think of all the ways that it won’t make sense or won’t work — and not just the time and places it would. Otherwise we create unintended problems and end up with a 2.1 that can’t be widely adopted because it creates too many limitations (i.e.. it is not generally applicable) 
>  
> scratching head on how to approach this…. 
>  
> g
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>