Re: HTML Text Alternatives document question

I think for the purposes of the text alternatives document, it might be
good to just embed the definition in the local glossary (lifting it from
WCAG).  Any objections?

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:38 AM, jason@accessibleculture.org <
jason@accessibleculture.org> wrote:

> I agree that the term is not widely used or understood. For what it’s
> worth, it is used in some government contexts to establish what
> technologies can or cannot be relied on to deliver accessible web content
> according to those governments’ accessibility standards.
>
> In the Canadian government context, “accessibility supported”
> technologies, and therefore technologies that can be relied on to deliver
> an accessible experience are defined, in part, as those technologies for
> which WCAG sufficient techniques exist [3].
>
> In Australia, the concept of accessibility support was used to address the
> question of using PDF as a sole format [4]. Note that this position has
> been modified slightly with the Australian Government’s more recent Digital
> Service Standard [5], which still refers to the concept of accessibility
> supported technologies.
>
> In New Zealand, we take a similar approach, and in effect, this again has
> to do largely with the question of PDF and other non-HTML document formats
> [6]. Whether the work that Adobe’s been doing to improve PDF accessibility
> support for VoiceOver on Mac OS X will change our approach I cannot say
> yet. There remain significant accessibility support issues on mobile
> platforms. I can say that we are hopeful that EPUB3 will soon have
> sufficient accessibility support across most platforms, user agents and
> assistive technologies such that we can say it is a suitable single format
> for packaged documents.
>
> While the concept of accessibility supported is not necessarily
> transparent or easy to understand and explain, it can be useful for
> establishing what technologies can or cannot be relied upon. That said, the
> reliance of WCAG conformance on this same concept adds a degree of
> complexity that can be difficult to address.
>
> For the figure and figcaption question, it would be useful to at least
> link to the formal definition of "accessibility supported" in WCAG, if not
> expand or replace it something along the lines of supported broadly by
> user agents, including assistive technologies.
>
> Jason
>
> [3] See the refinement of WCAG 2.0 Conformance requirement 4 at
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=23601
> [4]
> http://webguide.gov.au/accessibility-usability/accessibility/pdf-accessibility/
> [5] https://www.dto.gov.au/design-guides/guide/making-content-accessible
> [6]
> https://webtoolkit.govt.nz/guidance/design-and-development/accessibility-supported-technologies/
>
>
> On 10/09/2015, at 8:46 pm, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
> wrote:
>
> *From:* ahby@aptest.com [mailto:ahby@aptest.com <ahby@aptest.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Shane McCarron
> *Sent:* 10 September 2015 02:08
>
> "The text alternatives document [1] has a number of places where it says
> "accessibility supported".  As in "Once figure and figcaption are
> accessibility supported...".  Is this a term that we use a lot?  Is it well
> defined / known?  It feels awkward to me and it isn't in the glossary.
> Thoughts?"
>
> It's a term defined in WCAG [2]. That said, I don't think it's widely used
> or widely understood for that matter.
>
> Léonie.
> [1] https://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head
>
>
> --
> Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.