Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1)

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