- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:42:40 -0500
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxzsCdthYFT4KOxsZUh_hj80PBEeDv=oC0Pc+KVUNgP0Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi David, I'm still not 100% sure, but it really feels like a 4.x.x issue so far, as it's impacting the user agent as much as the content presented inside/by the user agent. But I really do want to hear other's thoughts here, as it really seems that it isn't cut and dried. What do *you* think? JF On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi John > > > - So I guess you mean you would like to see it in Principle 4. Do you > have a proposal? I think it could go either place. > - Principle 4 as you suggest, or Principle 1 (understanding that > Conformance Criteria 4 requires it to work if we make clear some users have > their device locked in a specific orientation on a wheelchair etc...) > > > 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 Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden < > gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > >> yes >> >> user agent was intended to mean anything that would fetch information >> from http:// and render to the user. >> >> *gregg* >> >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:02 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: >> >> David wrote: >> >> > WCAG Conformance Criteria 4 requires: >> *4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies:* See Understanding >> accessibility support >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head> >> . >> But that is about assistive technologies and special assisitive features >> in browser. >> >> David, I'm going to push back just slightly on that. WCAG 2.0 currently >> states: >> Principle 4: Robust - Content must be robust enough that it can be >> interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive >> technologies. >> Guideline 4.1 Compatible: Maximize compatibility with current and future >> user agents, including assistive technologies. >> >> In both of the above (principle and guideline) the specification >> deliberately says "User agent" and not "browser", and so I believe we >> need to be a little more open to the interpretation of user-agent. >> In the use-case that Patrick brings up, locking down screen orientation >> (and zoom) is something that the author can impact in the source code, even >> though the code required is usually found in the <head> element as >> meta-data and not the <body> element. So I disagree that this is a >> Perceivable issue, it's a hardware (User Agent) issue impacted by user-code >> (i.e. the device has been "locked" from auto-orientation/user-locked >> orientation and/or zooming). Those features in the device(s) [aka user >> agents] makes them Robust to the end user (end user can make changes to >> meet their needs), and removing that ability impacts the Robustness of the >> device(s). >> >> JF >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:07 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>An alternative would be to move the proposed guideline 3.4 under >>> "Principle 1: Perceivable - Information and user interface components must >>> be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.", and more explicitly >>> under "Guideline 1.3 Adaptable: Create content that can be presented in >>> different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or >>> structure." - however, I feel this would cover only the >>> visual/presentational aspect, rather than also any functional concerns >>> (that content should also "work" in different orientations)...or perhaps >>> I'm overthinking this part? >>> >>> You can never overthink an SC :-) ... They need to be kicked and >>> prodded from every direction during development. I felt during the >>> creation of WCAG 2 that Principle 4 was an area that was more difficult to >>> develop, and didn't get as much attention as the other SCs. I think there >>> is room to expand and fill it out in WCAG 2.1 if there is good reason to >>> do so. >>> >>> I'm guessing that by "functional concerns" you mean that the content >>> will still work in any orientation. I think you want to ensure in >>> layman's terms "All content is in the horizontal aspect ratio of the >>> viewport (Perceivable) and *works* in any orientation (Robust)". >>> >>> WCAG Conformance Criteria 4 requires: >>> *4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies:* See Understanding >>> accessibility support >>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head> >>> . >>> But that is about assistive technologies and special assisitive features >>> in browser. >>> >>> Perhaps we can tweak that definition to ensure that a user who has a >>> fixed orientation is an accessibility requirement for that user, and >>> therefore falls under the Conformance Criteria 4 "special accessibility >>> features in mainstream user agents". Then we won't have to worry about >>> splitting it up... It can go in Perceivable, and the functional aspects are >>> covered in the overarching Conformance criterion 4. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Patrick H. Lauke < >>> redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/06/2016 01:57, David MacDonald wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Patrick >>>>> >>>>> My thinking is that this fits well under perceivable. I'm hoping that >>>>> we >>>>> will expand Perceivable to >>>>> Guideline 1.5 include dynamic and updating content. It might go well in >>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/mobile-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposed_SC_on_information_added_or_removed_from_a_page >>>>> >>>> >>>> Note that this is NOT about dynamic changes/updates. It's not about how >>>> a site/app reacts when orientation/viewport is changed, but rather that it >>>> actually works in those orientations/changes (e.g. if a tablet is fixed to >>>> landscape orientation and the user accesses a site, NOT about the user >>>> accessing the site in portrait and then turning the device into landscape). >>>> So no, that's a separate issue from the one I'm talking about. >>>> >>>> >>>> P >>>> -- >>>> Patrick H. Lauke >>>> >>>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke >>>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com >>>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> John Foliot >> Principal Accessibility Strategist >> Deque Systems Inc. >> john.foliot@deque.com >> >> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >> >> >> > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 18:43:16 UTC