Re: [Conformance] Agenda for Thursday 17 February

Thanks Gregg. Focussing just on the two points where you note missing
clarity ...

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
>  ...
> > 2. Scenario 1.2 refers to audio descriptions, as does WCAG 2.x. However,
> > the HTML 5 spec, based on requirements published in the Media Accessibility
> > User Requirements (MAUR)<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/>
> > supports descriptions of video as delivered either as audio or textual
> > alternatives, and we even have an open source library supporting textual
> > descriptions of visual content courtessy of Nigel Megitt. Why does it
> > matter? Because the cost is so much less if textual alternatives for
> > video are understood to be available and acceptable. I suggest supporting
> > affordable accessibility is a reasonable goal.
> 
> DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE PROPOSING.
> 
> CHANGE "AUDIO DESCRIPTION"  TO  ….. (WHAT WORDS?) 
> 

Suggest avoiding the international confusion on the modality of the
alternative content and simply saying "descriptions of video" rather
than "audio descriptions."

PS: This has been Apple's approach for some time according to James Craig.

> (AGREE THAT WE SHOULD USE STANDARD INTERNATIONAL TERMS FOR THIS ) 


Sometimes the apparent consensus is incorrect, though; and sometimes it
just varies by region or some other factor.

> > 4. In situation 11.1 add something like "as prompted by the site
> > authoring tool provided by the ISP" for the statement on providing sufficient
> > contrast, text alternatives, headings, etc. I think we're teasing out the
> > reliance the small business owner is placing on their ISP. Without the ISP
> > they'd not ge able to get themselves on line. A certain reasonable standard
> > for privacy and sensitive data security is presumed, and often specified in
> > such situations. I believe we are insisting there's a reasonable expectation
> > of accessibility support in the ISP's tooling as well.
> 
> MY ISP IS VERIZON AND DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WEBSITES. 
> 
> ALTHOUGH AN ISP MIGHT PROVIDE WEB SITE SERVICES — MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY — "THE WEBSITE HOSTING/CREATING SERVICE" OR SOME SUCH. 
> 

That works for me, i.e. not all ISP also provide scripted (or guided)
site creation tooling. We want to get at the tooling providers via
pretty long established legal tort concepts, not that I'm a lawyer!

-- 

Janina Sajka
(she/her/hers)
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2022 15:45:47 UTC